Skip to main content

GitHub Copilot SDK–Breaking change in permission handling

If you looked at an older GitHub Copilot SDK example online and copied it over, there is a chance that you see the following error message when you try to execute the code:


Unhandled exception. System.ArgumentException: An OnPermissionRequest handler is required when creating a session. For example, to allow all permissions, use CreateSessionAsync(new() { OnPermissionRequest = PermissionHandler.ApproveAll });
   at GitHub.Copilot.SDK.CopilotClient.CreateSessionAsync(SessionConfig config, CancellationToken cancellationToken)


So, what exactly is happening here? The important part is this:

An OnPermissionRequest handler is required when creating a session.

The GitHub Copilot SDK is designed with a permission-based execution model. Whenever Copilot wants to execute a tool, access resources, or perform potentially impactful operations, the SDK expects the host application to decide whether that action is allowed. This is done through the OnPermissionRequest callback.

With older versions, an allow-all default permission was set. But with newer versions,  you have to explicitly configure the callback handler.Without this handler, the SDK refuses to create a session because it would otherwise have no way to safely authorize actions.

In other words:

The SDK requires the application developer to explicitly define the permission strategy.

That’s actually a good design choice.

Imagine an AI agent suddenly being able to:

  • execute shell commands
  • modify files
  • call external APIs
  • trigger MCP tools
  • access secrets
  • manipulate Git repositories

without any permission checks.

The SDK forces developers to consciously think about the security model.

The quick fix

The exception message already hints at the simplest solution:

But be careful with ApproveAll. While ApproveAll is convenient during experimentation, demos, or local prototypes, it’s dangerous in real-world scenarios.

You are effectively giving the AI unrestricted access to every permission request.

That may include:

  • file system access
  • command execution
  • network calls
  • tool invocation
  • repository modifications

For production-grade applications, you should therefore implement your own permission handler.

A better approach

Instead of blindly approving everything, you can inspect the requested permission first.

For example:

This gives you full control over what the agent is allowed to do.

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

The role of ActivitySource in OpenTelemetry for .NET

While doing some pair programming to integrate OpenTelemetry tracing to a .NET application, we had a discussion on how to use the ActivitySource . It looks simple. You new one up, give it a name, start an activity, done. The discussion started when we added a second ActivitySource with the exact same name in a different class. This made us wonder: "Are we duplicating traces now? Is this a memory leak? Do we need a singleton?" So we decided to dig deeper. This post is what we learned… What ActivitySource actually is ActivitySource is part of System.Diagnostics , not part of the OpenTelemetry NuGet packages. Microsoft built tracing primitives directly into the BCL, and OpenTelemetry's .NET SDK simply listens to them. This is why you can add distributed tracing to a library without taking a dependency on OpenTelemetry at all. An ActivitySource is a factory for Activity objects, and an Activity is .NET's name for what OpenTelemetry calls a span.(don’t ask m...