fix(sandbox): ensure procps survives hardening and stale base images (#2343) by ericksoa · Pull Request #2408 · NVIDIA/NemoClaw

ericksoa · 2026-04-24T02:22:56Z

Summary

Follow-up to #2356. The adversarial PR review found that procps tools (ps, top, free, uptime, vmstat) were still missing inside a real sandbox runtime even after #2356 added procps to Dockerfile.base. Root cause: the GHCR base image may not have been rebuilt yet, and the Dockerfile hardening step (apt-get autoremove --purge) could strip it.

This PR adds a three-layer defense in the production Dockerfile:

apt-mark manual procps before the autoremove step, so apt never considers it auto-removable
Conditional apt-get install procps if ps is still missing after hardening (handles stale GHCR base images that predate feat(sandbox): add procps for ps/top/kill debug tools (#2343) #2356)
Build-time ps --version smoke test that fails the Docker build if procps didn't make it through

Plus regression tests:

Static guards in sandbox-provisioning.test.ts verifying both Dockerfiles contain procps provisions
Runtime E2E test in e2e-test.sh verifying all five procps tools are executable inside the sandbox container

Test plan

hadolint Dockerfile passes
hadolint Dockerfile.base passes
vitest run test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts passes
CI test-e2e-sandbox job passes (runs e2e-test.sh inside container, including new test 11)
Docker build succeeds with both fresh base image and stale GHCR base

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Summary by CodeRabbit

Tests
- Added end-to-end checks that verify common system debug tools (ps, top, free, uptime, vmstat) run in the sandbox.
- Added regression tests ensuring Docker provisioning includes the debug tooling.
Chores
- Improved Docker provisioning to ensure procps/debug tools are present at runtime, with a fallback install path for older base images.

…2343) Follow-up to #2356. The base image addition alone does not guarantee procps is present in the production image — the GHCR base may not have been rebuilt yet, and apt-get autoremove in the hardening step could strip it. Add apt-mark manual + conditional install fallback in the production Dockerfile with a build-time smoke test, plus static and runtime regression tests. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

coderabbitai · 2026-04-24T02:23:08Z

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 07ae3a62-9cec-4635-873b-7cff36288d92

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c140feb and aaf39c6.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

Dockerfile

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds procps provisioning to images: Dockerfile.base installs a pinned procps; Dockerfile preserves/conditionally reinstalls procps during hardening and verifies ps at runtime; tests and E2E steps validate presence and executability of procps utilities.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Docker Runtime Hardening `Dockerfile`	Marks `procps` as manually installed before purge/autoremove, conditionally installs a pinned `procps` if `ps` is absent, removes apt lists, and emits `ps --version` to verify tooling.
Base Image Configuration `Dockerfile.base`	Adds a pinned `procps` package to the base image apt-get install list so procps utilities are present in the base layer.
E2E Testing `test/e2e-test.sh`	Adds E2E step verifying presence of `ps`, `top`, `free`, `uptime`, `vmstat` in $PATH and ensures `ps --version` executes successfully.
Provisioning Validation Tests `test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts`	Adds static tests asserting `Dockerfile.base` installs `procps` and `Dockerfile` contains `command -v ps` check plus fallback install logic for older base images.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

feat(sandbox): add procps for ps/top/kill debug tools (#2343) #2356: Pins procps in Dockerfile.base; closely related to the base-image pinning change here.

Poem

🐰 I nibbled code and found a fix,

ps, top, free — no missing tricks.
From base to runtime, snug and spry,
Debug tools hop, and tests comply. 🥕

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The pull request title clearly and specifically identifies the main change: ensuring procps robustness in the sandbox Docker image by addressing both the hardening step and stale base image scenarios.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Commit unit tests in branch fix/2343-sandbox-procps-robust

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts (1)

63-72: Tighten regex guards to reduce false positives in static checks.

Line 64 and Line 71 patterns are broad and can still pass after unintended Dockerfile edits. Consider matching the exact hardening invariants (apt-mark manual procps, fallback install, and ps --version smoke check).

Suggested test tightening

 it("Dockerfile.base installs procps in the apt-get layer", () => {
-  expect(baseSrc).toMatch(/apt-get.*install.*procps/s);
+  expect(baseSrc).toMatch(/apt-get\s+update\s*&&\s*apt-get\s+install[\s\S]*\bprocps=2:4\.0\.2-3\b/);
 });

 it("Dockerfile has a procps fallback for stale GHCR base images", () => {
   // The hardening step must protect procps from autoremove and install it
   // if the base image predates the procps addition.
+  expect(mainSrc).toMatch(/apt-mark\s+manual\s+procps/);
   expect(mainSrc).toMatch(/command -v ps/);
-  expect(mainSrc).toMatch(/install.*procps/);
+  expect(mainSrc).toMatch(/apt-get\s+install\s+-y\s+--no-install-recommends\s+procps=2:4\.0\.2-3/);
+  expect(mainSrc).toMatch(/ps --version/);
 });

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts` around lines 63 - 72, The tests use broad
regexes that yield false positives; tighten the assertions in the
"Dockerfile.base installs procps in the apt-get layer" and "Dockerfile has a
procps fallback for stale GHCR base images" tests to match the exact hardening
invariants: assert baseSrc contains the apt-mark invocation (e.g., match
/apt-mark\s+manual\s+procps/), assert mainSrc contains the explicit ps smoke
check (e.g., /ps\s+--version/ or /command\s+-v\s+ps/ depending on the script)
and the fallback install of procps (e.g., /\bapt-get\b.*\binstall\b.*\bprocps\b/
or the exact flags you use like
/apt-get\s+install.*--no-install-recommends.*procps/); update the expect calls
that reference baseSrc and mainSrc accordingly so they verify these precise
invariants.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@test/e2e-test.sh`:
- Around line 419-431: The script currently only smoke-tests execution for ps;
update the existence loop (the for loop iterating over cmd and using pass/fail)
to also attempt a safe, non-interactive execution of each found tool (using a
tried sequence such as --version, -V, or --help alternatives until one succeeds)
and call pass "<cmd> executes successfully" or fail "<cmd> found but failed to
execute" via the same pass/fail helpers; locate the loop that declares cmd and
the subsequent ps-only check and replace the separate ps execution check with
per-cmd execution attempts that use the cmd variable and reuse the pass/fail
functions (ensuring no interactive flags are used).

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts`:
- Around line 63-72: The tests use broad regexes that yield false positives;
tighten the assertions in the "Dockerfile.base installs procps in the apt-get
layer" and "Dockerfile has a procps fallback for stale GHCR base images" tests
to match the exact hardening invariants: assert baseSrc contains the apt-mark
invocation (e.g., match /apt-mark\s+manual\s+procps/), assert mainSrc contains
the explicit ps smoke check (e.g., /ps\s+--version/ or /command\s+-v\s+ps/
depending on the script) and the fallback install of procps (e.g.,
/\bapt-get\b.*\binstall\b.*\bprocps\b/ or the exact flags you use like
/apt-get\s+install.*--no-install-recommends.*procps/); update the expect calls
that reference baseSrc and mainSrc accordingly so they verify these precise
invariants.

🪄 Autofix (Beta)

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
Create a new PR with the fixes

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: 8d37a51f-caad-4522-b257-83988f21c48f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 4202bdb and c140feb.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

Dockerfile
Dockerfile.base
test/e2e-test.sh
test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts

coderabbitai · 2026-04-24T02:26:44Z

+for cmd in ps top free uptime vmstat; do
+  if command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1; then
+    pass "$cmd is available at $(command -v "$cmd")"
+  else
+    fail "$cmd not found — procps package missing from sandbox image"
+  fi
+done
+# Smoke-test: ps must actually execute, not just resolve
+if ps --version >/dev/null 2>&1; then
+  pass "ps executes successfully"
+else
+  fail "ps found but failed to execute"
+fi


⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Validate execution for all five tools, not only ps.

Line 419 currently proves PATH presence, but Lines 427-431 only smoke-test ps. To match the stated runtime guarantee, execute each tool with a safe non-interactive invocation.

Proposed hardening diff

-for cmd in ps top free uptime vmstat; do - if command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1; then - pass "$cmd is available at $(command -v "$cmd")" - else - fail "$cmd not found — procps package missing from sandbox image" - fi -done -# Smoke-test: ps must actually execute, not just resolve -if ps --version >/dev/null 2>&1; then - pass "ps executes successfully" -else - fail "ps found but failed to execute" -fi +for cmd in ps top free uptime vmstat; do + if ! command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1; then + fail "$cmd not found — procps package missing from sandbox image" + fi + case "$cmd" in + ps) "$cmd" --version >/dev/null 2>&1 ;; + top) "$cmd" -b -n 1 >/dev/null 2>&1 ;; + free) "$cmd" -b >/dev/null 2>&1 ;; + uptime) "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1 ;; + vmstat) "$cmd" 1 1 >/dev/null 2>&1 ;; + esac || fail "$cmd found but failed to execute" + pass "$cmd is available and executable" +done

📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

for cmd in ps top free uptime vmstat; do

if command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1; then

pass "$cmd is available at $(command -v "$cmd")"

else

fail "$cmd not found — procps package missing from sandbox image"

fi

done

# Smoke-test: ps must actually execute, not just resolve

if ps --version >/dev/null 2>&1; then

pass "ps executes successfully"

else

fail "ps found but failed to execute"

fi

for cmd in ps top free uptime vmstat; do

if ! command -v "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1; then

fail "$cmd not found — procps package missing from sandbox image"

fi

case "$cmd" in

ps) "$cmd" --version >/dev/null 2>&1 ;;

top) "$cmd" -b -n 1 >/dev/null 2>&1 ;;

free) "$cmd" -b >/dev/null 2>&1 ;;

uptime) "$cmd" >/dev/null 2>&1 ;;

vmstat) "$cmd" 1 1 >/dev/null 2>&1 ;;

esac || fail "$cmd found but failed to execute"

pass "$cmd is available and executable"

done

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed. In `@test/e2e-test.sh` around lines 419 - 431, The script currently only smoke-tests execution for ps; update the existence loop (the for loop iterating over cmd and using pass/fail) to also attempt a safe, non-interactive execution of each found tool (using a tried sequence such as --version, -V, or --help alternatives until one succeeds) and call pass "<cmd> executes successfully" or fail "<cmd> found but failed to execute" via the same pass/fail helpers; locate the loop that declares cmd and the subsequent ps-only check and replace the separate ps execution check with per-cmd execution attempts that use the cmd variable and reuse the pass/fail functions (ensuring no interactive flags are used).

wscurran · 2026-04-24T14:21:40Z

✨ Thanks for submitting this pull request that proposes a way to improve the compatibility of NemoClaw by ensuring procps survives hardening and stale base images. This identifies a bug that causes procps tools to be missing inside the sandbox runtime and proposes a three-layer defense to prevent it. The addition of regression tests and a build-time smoke test will help ensure the issue does not recur. Related open PRs: PR #2356. Related open issues: Issue #2343.

Related open PRs:

#2356 feat(sandbox): add procps for ps/top/kill debug tools (#2343)

Related open issues:

#2343 Support for necessary linux tools inside the sandbox

jyaunches

LGTM — clean procps hardening fix with three-layer defense (apt-mark manual, conditional install fallback, build-time smoke test). Tests are well-layered: static Dockerfile guards + E2E runtime verification. All CI green except wsl-e2e still running. Added hadolint DL3001 ignore for the intentional ps --version assertion.

…VIDIA#2343) (NVIDIA#2408) ## Summary Follow-up to NVIDIA#2356. The adversarial PR review found that `procps` tools (`ps`, `top`, `free`, `uptime`, `vmstat`) were still missing inside a real sandbox runtime even after NVIDIA#2356 added `procps` to `Dockerfile.base`. Root cause: the GHCR base image may not have been rebuilt yet, and the `Dockerfile` hardening step (`apt-get autoremove --purge`) could strip it. This PR adds a three-layer defense in the production `Dockerfile`: - **`apt-mark manual procps`** before the autoremove step, so apt never considers it auto-removable - **Conditional `apt-get install procps`** if `ps` is still missing after hardening (handles stale GHCR base images that predate NVIDIA#2356) - **Build-time `ps --version`** smoke test that fails the Docker build if procps didn't make it through Plus regression tests: - Static guards in `sandbox-provisioning.test.ts` verifying both Dockerfiles contain procps provisions - Runtime E2E test in `e2e-test.sh` verifying all five procps tools are executable inside the sandbox container ## Test plan - [ ] `hadolint Dockerfile` passes - [ ] `hadolint Dockerfile.base` passes - [ ] `vitest run test/sandbox-provisioning.test.ts` passes - [ ] CI `test-e2e-sandbox` job passes (runs `e2e-test.sh` inside container, including new test 11) - [ ] Docker build succeeds with both fresh base image and stale GHCR base 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)  ## Summary by CodeRabbit * **Tests** * Added end-to-end checks that verify common system debug tools (ps, top, free, uptime, vmstat) run in the sandbox. * Added regression tests ensuring Docker provisioning includes the debug tooling. * **Chores** * Improved Docker provisioning to ensure procps/debug tools are present at runtime, with a fallback install path for older base images.  --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Julie Yaunches <jyaunches@nvidia.com>

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

wscurran added bug Something fails against expected or documented behavior enhancement: testing dependencies Pull requests that update a dependency file labels Apr 24, 2026

jyaunches self-assigned this Apr 24, 2026

jyaunches self-requested a review April 24, 2026 17:54

fix(ci): suppress hadolint DL3001 for procps build-time smoke test

aaf39c6

jyaunches approved these changes Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

jyaunches merged commit b804db0 into main Apr 24, 2026
18 checks passed

cv added the v0.0.25 label Apr 24, 2026

ericksoa mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2026

fix(cli): add timeout to downloadSandboxConfig in dashboard recovery #2470

Closed

3 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(sandbox): ensure procps survives hardening and stale base images (#2343)#2408

fix(sandbox): ensure procps survives hardening and stale base images (#2343)#2408
jyaunches merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/2343-sandbox-procps-robust

ericksoa commented Apr 24, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Poem

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

wscurran commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

jyaunches left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Conversation

ericksoa commented Apr 24, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Test plan

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 24, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Poem

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot Apr 24, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

wscurran commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

jyaunches left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

ericksoa commented Apr 24, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 24, 2026 •

edited

Loading