Enable docker secrets as a more secure alternative to build args #17
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
No need for redactions, since values aren't shared.
dhh
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Docker build args work, but leave your value exposed in the final images. Docker buildx secrets are a more secure alternative.
This attempts to enable simple ENV based secrets in the builder command. In theory, if the referenced name is present in the ENV, this should JustWork™, but I have yet to test in anger. I'm not attempting to handle the more complex file-based secrets, as we don't generally use them.
Some of the function names are janky,
simple_secretize? What is that? Would love to get some feedback on the coding style and idea.