Skip to content

fix: pass through plugin capabilities #2095

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
another-rex merged 1 commit into from
Jul 21, 2025
Merged

fix: pass through plugin capabilities #2095

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
24 changes: 24 additions & 0 deletions cmd/osv-scanner/scan/source/__snapshots__/command_test.snap
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1935,6 +1935,30 @@ Scanned <rootdir>/fixtures/locks-licenses/package-lock.json file and found 4 pac

---

[TestCommand_Licenses/No_vulnerabilities_but_license_violations_with_allowlist - 1]
Scanning dir ./fixtures/locks-many/yarn.lock
Scanned <rootdir>/fixtures/locks-many/yarn.lock file and found 1 package
Total 0 packages affected by 0 known vulnerabilities (0 Critical, 0 High, 0 Medium, 0 Low, 0 Unknown) from 1 ecosystem.
0 vulnerabilities can be fixed.


+---------+-------------------------+
| LICENSE | NO. OF PACKAGE VERSIONS |
+---------+-------------------------+
| MIT | 1 |
+---------+-------------------------+
+-------------------+-----------+----------------+---------+-------------------------------+
| LICENSE VIOLATION | ECOSYSTEM | PACKAGE | VERSION | SOURCE |
+-------------------+-----------+----------------+---------+-------------------------------+
| MIT | npm | balanced-match | 1.0.2 | fixtures/locks-many/yarn.lock |
+-------------------+-----------+----------------+---------+-------------------------------+

---

[TestCommand_Licenses/No_vulnerabilities_but_license_violations_with_allowlist - 2]

---

[TestCommand_Licenses/No_vulnerabilities_with_license_summary - 1]
Scanning dir ./fixtures/locks-many
Scanned <rootdir>/fixtures/locks-many/Gemfile.lock file and found 1 package
Expand Down
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions cmd/osv-scanner/scan/source/command_test.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -760,6 +760,11 @@ func TestCommand_Licenses(t *testing.T) {
Args: []string{"", "source", "--licenses=MIT", "--config=./fixtures/osv-scanner-empty-config.toml", "./fixtures/locks-many/package-lock.json"},
Exit: 1,
},
{
Name: "No vulnerabilities but license violations with allowlist",
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@G-Rath G-Rath Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is still good to have but fyi we've already got this covered with "some packages with license violations in json" about 4 cases down, which is why #2093 doesn't get covered by this 🤷

Args: []string{"", "source", "--licenses=Apache-2.0", "--config=./fixtures/osv-scanner-empty-config.toml", "./fixtures/locks-many/yarn.lock"},
Exit: 1,
},
{
Name: "Vulnerabilities and all license violations allowlisted",
Args: []string{"", "source", "--licenses=Apache-2.0", "--config=./fixtures/osv-scanner-empty-config.toml", "./fixtures/locks-many/package-lock.json"},
Expand Down
8 changes: 5 additions & 3 deletions pkg/osvscanner/osvscanner.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -340,16 +340,18 @@ func DoContainerScan(actions ScannerActions) (models.VulnerabilityResults, error
plugins[i+len(filesystemExtractors)] = det.(plugin.Plugin)
}

plugins = plugin.FilterByCapabilities(plugins, &plugin.Capabilities{
capabilities := &plugin.Capabilities{
DirectFS: true,
RunningSystem: false,
OS: plugin.OSLinux,
})
}
plugins = plugin.FilterByCapabilities(plugins, capabilities)
Comment on lines +343 to +348
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@cuixq cuixq Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does this make any functional change?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@another-rex another-rex Jul 21, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because we are filtering already, it doesn't really change anything functional.


// --- Do Scalibr Scan ---
scanner := scalibr.New()
scalibrSR, err := scanner.ScanContainer(context.Background(), img, &scalibr.ScanConfig{
Plugins: plugins,
Plugins: plugins,
Capabilities: capabilities,
})
if err != nil {
return models.VulnerabilityResults{}, fmt.Errorf("failed to scan container image: %w", err)
Expand Down
Loading