‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

VSCode's SSH Agent Is Bananas (2025)

310 points · 218 comments · Rapzid

  1. danielklnstein · · focus · HN ↗
    Missing a (2025)

    FYI VSCode's SSH Agent is a godsend for remote development - the "disadvantages" that Fly lists are part of its advantages. I've worked in several teams that have made extensive use of the extension, and it's never been an issue. You can restrict SSH access arbitrarily to ensure whatever security or access guardrails you need.

    1. godelski · · focus · HN ↗
      As a Linux user I've hated VSCode's ssh. There's lot of annoying things that make it harder to admin for. Like it doesn't pick up the MotD, preventing me from showing users important messages. I've found that it also doesn't reuse sessions (at least by default. TBF, neither does ssh) and I'll find that there's just dozens of open sessions over months from users. I literally had to write a script to boot people...

      It would be one thing if the plugin was just a wrapper and people were still expected to know ssh but the plugin abstracts away all that and is intended to make it a "use VSCode on remote machine" tool. So it needs to do more than just handle creds, otherwise it creates a divergent experience while making people think it's just ssh

      1. throw0101a · · focus · HN ↗
        > There's lot of annoying things that make it harder to admin for.

        It also (AIUI) tries to walk the entire file tree, so have fun with NFS (auto)mounts.

        It also amounts to letting off fork bombs: we set up limits for a maximum of 256 process per UID, and regularly get folks asking "what does this 'cannot fork' message mean?": it mean you're trying to DoS the system.

        1. DougBTX · · focus · HN ↗
          > we set up limits for a maximum of 256 process per UID, and regularly get folks asking "what does this 'cannot fork' message mean?"

          The max limit on 64 bit systems is what, 4,194,303? So if you have over 16,000 users per VM this limit makes sense, otherwise it just seems user-hostile.

          1. godelski · · focus · HN ↗

              > The max limit on 64 bit systems is what, 4,194,303?
            
            What a weird framing... I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue. I mean a single process can overload the machine. Just because you can label 4m processes doesn't mean you can actually run that many programs. Just think about that for a minute. 256 processes is pretty generous
            1. pinkgolem · · focus · HN ↗
              i am not sure what you are arguing, but if user frequently run into it.. it seems hostile?

              if you have a paid tier which offers more, you do you

              if this is internally and you are a service provider to people.. why?

              also 256 is not much today, my mac with a few things open is at 800

              1. californical · · focus · HN ↗
                800 running a desktop environment, iCloud syncing, tons of background programs (wallpaper manager is one! Another for keyboard brightness, probably)

                Compared to someone on an ssh connection. No desktop, no Apple Account, no user session programs, etc. You really don’t need much

                1. pinkgolem · · focus · HN ↗
                  i mean you wrote yourself that users are frequently running into this..

                  i do not know why/in which context you are running this, and how frequently your users are executing forkbombs(i assume school/kids?)

                  my server is also running 400 something processes, one postgres instance alone is like 40?

                  1. godelski · · focus · HN ↗
                    Are all those processes 1 UID?
              2. bitfilped · · focus · HN ↗
                It might seem hostile to one user, it's not to the other 20-40 trying to get work done on a login node with runaway processes.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.