ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to include files outside of Docker's build context?

How can I include files from outside of Docker's build context using the "ADD" command in the Docker file?

From the Docker documentation:

The path must be inside the context of the build; you cannot ADD ../something/something, because the first step of a docker build is to send the context directory (and subdirectories) to the docker daemon.

I do not want to restructure my whole project just to accommodate Docker in this matter. I want to keep all my Docker files in the same sub-directory.

Also, it appears Docker does not yet (and may not ever) support symlinks: Dockerfile ADD command does not follow symlinks on host #1676.

The only other thing I can think of is to include a pre-build step to copy the files into the Docker build context (and configure my version control to ignore those files). Is there a better workaround for than that?

This has got to be the worst thing about Docker. From my point of view, there is no such thing as a "Docker project". Docker is for shipping projects. Its just a tool. I don't want to have to rebuild my whole project to accomadte docker, adding .dockerignore etc. At the end of the day, who knows how long Docker will last? It would be great to have a seperation between code (i.e. angular project), and whatever means to deploy it (i.e. docker). After all, there really is no benefit to having a docker file next to everything else. Its just wiring things up in order to create an image :(
Yeah, this is a big downer. I'm facing the same issue and I have a larger sized binary file (already compressed) that I don't want to copy into each Docker build context. I'd rather source it from its current location (outside the Docker build context). And I don't want to map a volume at run time, because I'm trying to COPY/ADD the file at build-time and unzip and do what I need so certain binaries are baked into the image. This way spinning up the containers are quick.
I found a good structure and I explain with details at stackoverflow.com/a/53298446/433814
the problem with docker builds is the made-up concept of "context". Dockerfiles are not sufficient to define a build, unless they are placed under a strategic directory (aka context), i.e. "/" as an extreme, so you can access any path (note that that's not the right thing to do in a sane project either..., plus it makes docker builds very slow because docker scans the entire context at start). You can consider building a docker image with all the required files, and usinng FROM to continue from there. I would not change the project structure to accommodate Docker (or any build tools).

C
Cyberwiz

The best way to work around this is to specify the Dockerfile independently of the build context, using -f.

For instance, this command will give the ADD command access to anything in your current directory.

docker build -f docker-files/Dockerfile .

Update: Docker now allows having the Dockerfile outside the build context (fixed in 18.03.0-ce). So you can also do something like

docker build -f ../Dockerfile .

@Ro. you use the dockerfile: property in the build: section in the Compose file docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#/compose-file-reference
Does this solve the OP's problem of wanting to ADD a file that is outside the context directory? That's what I'm trying to do but I don't think using -f makes external files addable.
This solution really isn't useful if your trying to source the file from a completely different outside the Docker build context. i.e. suppose your file is under /src/my_large_file.zip and your Docker build context is under /home/user1/mydocker_project. I don't wan to copy the file over to the Docker build context because its large and I want bake some of its contents into the image so that starting up containers isn't a slow process.
Can't upvote this enough.. in my docker-compose.yml I have: build: context: .., dockerfile: dir/Dockerfile. Now my build context is the parent directory!
I'm running this from a directory with a lot of files and the result is that I'm looking at a message that says sending build context to Docker deamon and it appears to copy gigagbytes of data.
s
sheldonh

I often find myself utilizing the --build-arg option for this purpose. For example after putting the following in the Dockerfile:

ARG SSH_KEY
RUN echo "$SSH_KEY" > /root/.ssh/id_rsa

You can just do:

docker build -t some-app --build-arg SSH_KEY="$(cat ~/file/outside/build/context/id_rsa)" .

But note the following warning from the Docker documentation:

Warning: It is not recommended to use build-time variables for passing secrets like github keys, user credentials etc. Build-time variable values are visible to any user of the image with the docker history command.


This is poor advice without a huge warning. From the Docker documentation: "Warning: It is not recommended to use build-time variables for passing secrets like github keys, user credentials etc. Build-time variable values are visible to any user of the image with the docker history command." [1] In other words, the example given in this example discloses the private SSH key in the docker image. In some contexts, that might be fine. docs.docker.com/engine/reference/builder/#arg
Finally, to overcome this security issue, you could use techniques like squashing or multistage-builds: vsupalov.com/build-docker-image-clone-private-repo-ssh-key
P
Pang

I spent a good time trying to figure out a good pattern and how to better explain what's going on with this feature support. I realized that the best way to explain it was as follows...

Dockerfile: Will only see files under its own relative path

Context: a place in "space" where the files you want to share and your Dockerfile will be copied to

So, with that said, here's an example of the Dockerfile that needs to reuse a file called start.sh

Dockerfile

It will always load from its relative path, having the current directory of itself as the local reference to the paths you specify.

COPY start.sh /runtime/start.sh

Files

Considering this idea, we can think of having multiple copies for the Dockerfiles building specific things, but they all need access to the start.sh.

./all-services/
   /start.sh
   /service-X/Dockerfile
   /service-Y/Dockerfile
   /service-Z/Dockerfile
./docker-compose.yaml

Considering this structure and the files above, here's a docker-compose.yml

docker-compose.yaml

In this example, your shared context directory is the runtime directory. Same mental model here, think that all the files under this directory are moved over to the so-called context. Similarly, just specify the Dockerfile that you want to copy to that same directory. You can specify that using dockerfile.

Same mental model here, think that all the files under this directory are moved over to the so-called context.

Similarly, just specify the Dockerfile that you want to copy to that same directory. You can specify that using dockerfile.

The directory where your main content is located is the actual context to be set.

The docker-compose.yml is as follows

version: "3.3"
services:
  
  service-A
    build:
      context: ./all-service
      dockerfile: ./service-A/Dockerfile

  service-B
    build:
      context: ./all-service
      dockerfile: ./service-B/Dockerfile

  service-C
    build:
      context: ./all-service
      dockerfile: ./service-C/Dockerfile

all-service is set as the context, the shared file start.sh is copied there as well the Dockerfile specified by each dockerfile.

Each gets to be built their own way, sharing the start file!


Your point on Dockerfile is not completly true, as pointed by the accepted answer, if you are in a folder hierarchy a/b/c, then yes running docker build . in c won't allow you to access ../file-in-b. But, I think the general misundertanding in this (or at least mine was) is that the context is defined by the location stated by the first argument of the build command, not by the location of the Dockerfile. So as stated in the accepted answer: from a: docker build -f a/b/c/Dockerfile . means that in the Dockerfile . is now the folder a
Quoting from the Dockerfile docs: paths of files and directories will be interpreted as relative to the source of the context of the build.
sincere thank you for carefully documenting this, really helpful..
@RobertSinclair, not a problem buddy! This helps me a lot during dev... I'm glad it helped!!!
This should be the selected solution for this issue, I never used context in docker build but now I can't work without it! This is the most elegant and useful solution
C
Community

On Linux you can mount other directories instead of symlinking them

mount --bind olddir newdir

See https://superuser.com/questions/842642 for more details.

I don't know if something similar is available for other OSes. I also tried using Samba to share a folder and remount it into the Docker context which worked as well.


Only root can bind directories
Users who can access docker have some sort of root access anyway, since arbitrary docker commands can be used to break the chroot jail (or just mount the required files into the container)
U
Usman Ismail

If you read the discussion in the issue 2745 not only docker may never support symlinks they may never support adding files outside your context. Seems to be a design philosophy that files that go into docker build should explicitly be part of its context or be from a URL where it is presumably deployed too with a fixed version so that the build is repeatable with well known URLs or files shipped with the docker container.

I prefer to build from a version controlled source - ie docker build -t stuff http://my.git.org/repo - otherwise I'm building from some random place with random files. fundamentally, no.... -- SvenDowideit, Docker Inc

Just my opinion but I think you should restructure to separate out the code and docker repositories. That way the containers can be generic and pull in any version of the code at run time rather than build time.

Alternatively, use docker as your fundamental code deployment artifact and then you put the dockerfile in the root of the code repository. if you go this route probably makes sense to have a parent docker container for more general system level details and a child container for setup specific to your code.


Why use docker at all then?
A
Anshuman Manral

I believe the simpler workaround would be to change the 'context' itself.

So, for example, instead of giving:

docker build -t hello-demo-app .

which sets the current directory as the context, let's say you wanted the parent directory as the context, just use:

docker build -t hello-demo-app ..

I think this breaks .dockerignore :-\
I gave up on .dockerignore and instead made Makefile managed docker folder that contains only files needed for build context... I only need to call make build and it pulls in all files needed if they were updated and then it calls appropriate docker build... I need to do extra work, but it works flawlessly because I'm in full control.
L
Laurent Picquet

You can also create a tarball of what the image needs first and use that as your context.

https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/build/#/tarball-contexts


Great tip! I discovered you can even feed docker build the tarball as context on stdin: tar zc /dir1 /dir2 |docker build -. This was very helpful in my case.
Also it's possible to source from a local existing tar, see this answer
R
Rocksn17

As is described in this GitHub issue the build actually happens in /tmp/docker-12345, so a relative path like ../relative-add/some-file is relative to /tmp/docker-12345. It would thus search for /tmp/relative-add/some-file, which is also shown in the error message.*

It is not allowed to include files from outside the build directory, so this results in the "Forbidden path" message."


P
Pang

Using docker-compose, I accomplished this by creating a service that mounts the volumes that I need and committing the image of the container. Then, in the subsequent service, I rely on the previously committed image, which has all of the data stored at mounted locations. You will then have have to copy these files to their ultimate destination, as host mounted directories do not get committed when running a docker commit command

You don't have to use docker-compose to accomplish this, but it makes life a bit easier

# docker-compose.yml

version: '3'
  services:
    stage:
      image: alpine
      volumes:
        - /host/machine/path:/tmp/container/path
      command: bash -c "cp -r /tmp/container/path /final/container/path"
    setup:
      image: stage
# setup.sh

# Start "stage" service
docker-compose up stage

# Commit changes to an image named "stage"
docker commit $(docker-compose ps -q stage) stage

# Start setup service off of stage image
docker-compose up setup

T
Trevor Boyd Smith

Create a wrapper docker build shell script that grabs the file then calls docker build then removes the file.

a simple solution not mentioned anywhere here from my quick skim:

have a wrapper script called docker_build.sh

have it create tarballs, copy large files to the current working directory

call docker build

clean up the tarballs, large files, etc

this solution is good because (1.) it doesn't have the security hole from copying in your SSH private key (2.) another solution uses sudo bind so that has another security hole there because it requires root permission to do bind.


f
fde-capu

Workaround with links:

ln path/to/file/outside/context/file_to_copy ./file_to_copy

On Dockerfile, simply:

COPY file_to_copy /path/to/file


I probably wont use this because this doesn't work with soft links, only hard links
unknown instruction: LN
@Sheldeeb ln would be used on Unix context, not in the Dockerfile, to create the hard link (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ln_(Unix)). Then treat the link as a regular file. It is not capital "LN".
this may affect the code base, i.e: override an existing file, or even modify a clean git repo. also you may cannot rename the file, for example you cannot modify package.json if you like to run npm install after creating the hard link
B
Ben Wex

An easy workaround might be to simply mount the volume (using the -v or --mount flag) to the container when you run it and access the files that way.

example:

docker run -v /path/to/file/on/host:/desired/path/to/file/in/container/ image_name

for more see: https://docs.docker.com/storage/volumes/


Note that this only works if the volume is a runtime dependency. For build time dependencies, docker run is too late.
S
Seyed Mostafa SeyedAshoor

I was personally confused by some answers, so decided to explain it simply.

You should pass the context, you have specified in Dockerfile, to docker when want to create image.

I always select root of project as the context in Dockerfile.

so for example if you use COPY command like COPY . .

first dot(.) is the context and second dot(.) is container working directory

Assuming the context is project root, dot(.) , and code structure is like this

sample-project/
  docker/
    Dockerfile

If you want to build image

and your path (the path you run the docker build command) is /full-path/sample-project/, you should do this

docker build -f docker/Dockerfile . 

and if your path is /full-path/sample-project/docker/, you should do this

docker build -f Dockerfile ../ 

i
isca

This behavior is given by the context directory that the docker or podman uses to present the files to the build process.
A nice trick here is by changing the context dir during the building instruction to the full path of the directory, that you want to expose to the daemon. e.g:

docker build -t imageName:tag -f /path/to/the/Dockerfile /mysrc/path

using /mysrc/path instead of .(current directory), you'll be using that directory as a context, so any files under it can be seen by the build process.
This example you'll be exposing the entire /mysrc/path tree to the docker daemon.
When using this with docker the user ID who triggered the build must have recursively read permissions to any single directory or file from the context dir.

This can be useful in cases where you have the /home/user/myCoolProject/Dockerfile but want to bring to this container build context, files that aren't in the same directory.

Here is an example of building using context dir, but this time using podman instead of docker.

Lets take as example, having inside your Dockerfile a COPY or ADDinstruction which is copying files from a directory outside of your project, like:

FROM myImage:tag
...
...
COPY /opt/externalFile ./
ADD /home/user/AnotherProject/anotherExternalFile ./
...

In order to build this, with a container file located in the /home/user/myCoolProject/Dockerfile, just do something like:

cd /home/user/myCoolProject
podman build -t imageName:tag -f Dockefile /

Some known use cases to change the context dir, is when using a container as a toolchain for building your souce code. e.g:

podman build --platform linux/s390x -t myimage:mytag -f ./Dockerfile /tmp/mysrc

or it can be a path relative, like:

podman build --platform linux/s390x -t myimage:mytag -f ./Dockerfile ../../

Another example using this time a global path:

FROM myImage:tag
...
...
COPY externalFile ./
ADD  AnotherProject ./
...

Notice that now the full global path for the COPY and ADD is omitted in the Dockerfile command layers.
In this case the contex dir must be relative to where the files are, if both externalFile and AnotherProject are in /opt directory then the context dir for building it must be:

podman build -t imageName:tag -f ./Dockerfile /opt

Note when using COPY or ADD with context dir in docker:
The docker daemon will try to "stream" all the files visible on the context dir tree to the daemon, which can slowdown the build. And requires the user to have recursively permission from the context dir. This behavior can be more costly specially when using the build through the API. However,with podman the build happens instantaneously, without needing recursively permissions, that's because podman does not enumerate the entire context dir, and doesn't use a client/server architecture as well.
The build for such cases can be way more interesting to use podman instead of docker, when you face such issues using a different context dir.

Some references:

https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/build/

https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-build.1.html


This is dangerous and not advisable. The Docker build context will be your entire machine. For one, sending that entire context to the daemon will take forever. Second, the build process itself can do whatever it wants really. A malicious Dockerfile can connect to remote servers with full filesystem read access. Lastly, your Dockerfile instructions like ADD become closely coupled to your machine, requiring full aka absolute paths for everything. They will no longer be portable.
The point here is to explain the entrypoint and how it works, not judge the best standards. Keep in mind the best is to keep everything self-contained in the same project. However the question is how-to achieve such behavior and demonstrate how the entrypoint works. It will not take forever since there's no enumeration in the daemon to make it happen. The context here is defined in the build by an ID with permission on to, not by a fixed path in the daemon, So malicious Dockefile doesn't make sense here.
Did you test the snippets of your answer? As a regular user, assuming a Unix OS, you don't even have read permission for all of /. It will just error out with permission denied. Running the above as root could (?) fix it, but is a terrible idea. In any case, I CTRL+C-ed out of the build process I ran for testing after 3GB of / had been loaded into the daemon's build context. The above doesn't work for me at all!
For sure, with both cases, and it works, is not a matter of standard, but is a matter of why the context dir exists. Here, I'm using / as example to illustrate the exposure of it. However I improved the answer to address your concerns here
E
ErikE

I had this same issue with a project and some data files that I wasn't able to move inside the repo context for HIPAA reasons. I ended up using 2 Dockerfiles. One builds the main application without the stuff I needed outside the container and publishes that to internal repo. Then a second dockerfile pulls that image and adds the data and creates a new image which is then deployed and never stored anywhere. Not ideal, but it worked for my purposes of keeping sensitive information out of the repo.


P
Pang

In my case, my Dockerfile is written like a template containing placeholders which I'm replacing with real value using my configuration file.

So I couldn't specify this file directly but pipe it into the docker build like this:

sed "s/%email_address%/$EMAIL_ADDRESS/;" ./Dockerfile | docker build -t katzda/bookings:latest . -f -;

But because of the pipe, the COPY command didn't work. But the above way solves it by -f - (explicitly saying file not provided). Doing only - without the -f flag, the context AND the Dockerfile are not provided which is a caveat.


just an FYI, you could use build-args for that
This solution, which proposes using "docker build -t . -f -" also solved the problem that I had where I wanted to generate a dockerfile by bash script and input it via STDIN, but I also wanted to COPY files from the local context "."
P
Pang

One quick and dirty way is to set the build context up as many levels as you need - but this can have consequences. If you're working in a microservices architecture that looks like this:

./Code/Repo1
./Code/Repo2
...

You can set the build context to the parent Code directory and then access everything, but it turns out that with a large number of repositories, this can result in the build taking a long time.

An example situation could be that another team maintains a database schema in Repo1 and your team's code in Repo2 depends on this. You want to dockerise this dependency with some of your own seed data without worrying about schema changes or polluting the other team's repository (depending on what the changes are you may still have to change your seed data scripts of course) The second approach is hacky but gets around the issue of long builds:

Create a sh (or ps1) script in ./Code/Repo2 to copy the files you need and invoke the docker commands you want, for example:

#!/bin/bash
rm -r ./db/schema
mkdir ./db/schema

cp  -r ../Repo1/db/schema ./db/schema

docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml down
docker container prune -f
docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml up --build

In the docker-compose file, simply set the context as Repo2 root and use the content of the ./db/schema directory in your dockerfile without worrying about the path. Bear in mind that you will run the risk of accidentally committing this directory to source control, but scripting cleanup actions should be easy enough.


j
jrasm91

How to share typescript code between two Dockerfiles

I had this same problem, but for sharing files between two typescript projects. Some of the other answers didn't work for me because I needed to preserve the relative import paths between the shared code. I solved it by organizing my code like this:

api/
  Dockerfile
  src/
    models/
      index.ts

frontend/
  Dockerfile
  src/
    models/
      index.ts

shared/
  model1.ts
  model2.ts
  index.ts

.dockerignore

Note: After extracting the shared code into that top folder, I avoided needing to update the import paths because I updated api/models/index.ts and frontend/models/index.ts to export from shared: (eg export * from '../../../shared)

Since the build context is now one directory higher, I had to make a few additional changes:

Update the build command to use the new context: docker build -f Dockerfile .. (two dots instead of one) Use a single .dockerignore at the top level to exclude all node_modules. (eg **/node_modules/**) Prefix the Dockerfile COPY commands with api/ or frontend/ Copy shared (in addition to api/src or frontend/src) WORKDIR /usr/src/app COPY api/package*.json ./ <---- Prefix with api/ RUN npm ci COPY api/src api/ts*.json ./ <---- Prefix with api/ COPY shared usr/src/shared <---- ADDED RUN npm run build

This was the easiest way I could send everything to docker, while preserving the relative import paths in both projects. The tricky (annoying) part was all the changes/consequences caused by the build context being up one directory.