---
page_title: Upgrading to Terraform v1.1
description: Upgrading to Terraform v1.1
---

# Upgrading to Terraform v1.1

Terraform v1.1 is the first minor release after establishing a compatibility
baseline in Terraform v1.0, and so this release should not require any
unusual upgrade steps for most users.

However, if you are upgrading from a version earlier than v1.0 then please
refer to [the Terraform v1.0 upgrade guide](/language/upgrade-guides/1-0) for how to upgrade through
the v0 releases to reach the v1 release series. Because v1.1 is
backward-compatible with the v1.0 series, you can upgrade directly to the
latest v1.1 release, skipping the v1.0 series entirely, at any point where the
v1.0 upgrade guide calls for upgrading to Terraform v1.0.

Terraform v1.1 continues to honor
[the Terraform v1.0 Compatibility Promises](/language/v1-compatibility-promises),
but there are some behavior changes outside of those promises that may affect a
small number of users, described in the following sections.

* [Terraform requires macOS 10.13 High Sierra or later](#terraform-requires-macos-1013-high-sierra-or-later)
* [Preparation for removing Azure AD Graph support in the AzureRM Backend](#preparation-for-removing-azure-ad-graph-support-in-the-azurerm-backend)
* [Interpretation of remote file paths in the `remote-exec` and `file` provisioners](#interpretation-of-remote-file-paths-in-the-remote-exec-and-file-provisioners)
* [Changes to `terraform graph`](#changes-to-terraform-graph)
* [Changes to `terraform state mv`](#changes-to-terraform-state-mv)
* [Provider checksum verification in `terraform apply`](#provider-checksum-verification-in-terraform-apply)

## Terraform requires macOS 10.13 High Sierra or later

As operating system vendors phase out support for older versions of their
software, the Terraform team must also phase out support in order to focus
on supporting newer releases.

With that in mind, the official releases of Terraform v1.1 now require
macOS 10.13 High Sierra or later. Earlier versions of macOS are no longer
supported, and Terraform CLI behavior on those earlier versions is undefined.

## Preparation for removing Azure AD Graph support in the AzureRM Backend

[Microsoft has announced the deprecation of Azure AD Graph](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/graph/migrate-azure-ad-graph-faq),
and so Terraform v1.1 marks the first phase of a deprecation process for
that legacy system in [the AzureRM state storage backend](/language/settings/backends/azurerm).

During the Terraform v1.1 release the default behavior is unchanged, but you
can explicitly opt in to Microsoft Graph by setting
`use_microsoft_graph = true` inside your `backend "azurerm` block and then
reinitializing your working directory with `terraform init -reconfigure`.

In Terraform v1.2 we plan to change this argument to default to `true` when
not set, and so we strongly recommend planning to migrate to Microsoft Graph
in the near future to prepare for the final removal of Azure AD Graph support
in a later Terraform release. However, no immediate change is required before
upgrading to Terraform v1.1.

## Interpretation of remote file paths in the `remote-exec` and `file` provisioners

When using Terraform's built-in `remote-exec` and `file` provisioners, there
are two situations where Terraform internally uses
[Secure Copy Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_copy_protocol)
(SCP) to upload files to the remote system at a configuration-specified
location:

* For [the `file` provisioner](/language/resources/provisioners/file),
  the primary functionality is to upload a file using SCP, and the
  `destination` argument specifies the remote path where the file is to be
  written.
* For [the `remote-exec` provisioner](/language/resources/provisioners/remote-exec),
  internally the provisioner works by uploading the given scripts to files
  on the remote system and then executing them. By default the provisioner
  selects a temporary filename automatically, but a module author can
  potentially override that location using the `script_path` argument in the
  associated [`connection` block](https://www.terraform.io/language/resources/provisioners/connection).

If you are not using either of the specific arguments mentioned above, no
configuration changes will be required to upgrade to Terraform v1.1.

These provisioners both passing the specified remote paths to the `scp` service
program on the remote system. In Terraform v1.0 and earlier, the provisioners
were passing the paths to `scp` in a way that was inadvertently subject to
_shell expansion_. That inadvertently allowed for convenient shorthands
such as `~/example` and `$HOME/example` to write into the target user's
home directory, but also offered an undesirable opportunity for accidental
remote code execution, such as `$(arbitrary-program)`.

In Terraform v1.1 both of the above remote path arguments are passed _verbatim_
to the remote `scp` service, without any prior shell expansion. For that reason,
shell-defined expansion tokens such as `~` and environment variable references
will no longer be evaluated.

By default, the OpenSSH server and the program `scp` together already interpret
relative paths as relative to the target user's home directory, and so
module authors can specify relative paths without any special metacharacters
in order to request uploading into that default location:

```hcl
  provisioner "file" {
    source      = "local.txt"
    destination = "remote.txt"
  }
```

If you maintain a module that was depending on expansion of `~/`, `$HOME/`,
`${HOME}`/ or similar, remove that prefix so that your module instead specifies
just a relative path.

This is an intentional compatibility regression which we accepted after due
consideration of
[the pragmatic exceptions to our compatibility promises](/language/v1-compatibility-promises#pragmatic-exceptions).
Specifically, this behavior offered an unintended and non-obvious avenue for
arbitrary code execution on the remote system if either of the above arguments
were populated from outside input, and an alternative approach is available
which doesn't have that drawback, and this is therefore justified on security
grounds.

## Changes to `terraform graph`

The `terraform graph` command exists to help with debugging and so it
inherently exposes some of Terraform Core's implementation details. For that
reason it isn't included in the v1.0 Compatibility Promises, but we still
aim to preserve its behavior in spirit even as Terraform Core's internal
design changes.

In previous releases, `terraform graph` exposed the implementation detail that
Terraform internally knows how to build graph types called "validate" and
"eval", but Terraform Core no longer exposes those graph types externally
and so consequently the graph command will no longer accept the options
`-type=validate` or `-type=eval`.

You can see a similar result to what those graph types would previously
produce by generating a _plan_ graph, which is the default graph type and
therefore requires no special `-type=...` option.

## Changes to `terraform state mv`

Terraform's local state storage backend supports a number of
[legacy command line options](/language/settings/backends/local#command-line-arguments)
for backward-compatibility with workflows from much older versions of Terraform,
prior to the introduction of Backends.

Those options are not supported when using any other backend, but for many
commands they are simply silently ignored rather than returning an error.

Because `terraform state mv` has some extra use-cases related to migrating
between states, it historically had some slightly different handling of those
legacy options, but was not fully consistent.

From Terraform v1.1, the behavior of these options has changed as follows:

* The `-state=...` argument is allowed even when a remote backend is specified
  in the configuration. If present, it forces the command to work in local
  mode.
* The `-backup=...` and `-backup-out=...` options are allowed only if either
  the local backend is the configuration's selected backend _or_ if you
  specify `-state=...` to force local state operation. These options will now
  return an error if used against a remote backend, whereas previous Terraform
  versions ignored them entirely in that case.

There are no breaking changes to `terraform state mv`'s normal usage pattern,
without any special options overriding the state storage strategy.

## Provider checksum verification in `terraform apply`

This section applies only to situations where you might generate a saved
plan file using `terraform plan -out=tfplan` and then separately apply it
using `terraform apply tfplan`.

You do not need to consider this section unless you are using a custom
Terraform provider which somehow modifies its own provider package contents
during execution. That is hypothetically possible, but not true in practice for
any publicly-available providers we are aware of at the time of writing this
guide.

Our design intent for this two-step run workflow is that the saved plan
records enough information for Terraform to guarantee that it's running
against an identical set of providers during the apply step as it was during
the plan step, because otherwise the different provider plugins may disagree
about the meaning of the planned actions.

However, prior versions of Terraform verified consistency only for the main
executable file representing a provider plugin, and didn't consider other
files that might appear alongside in the plugin package. Terraform v1.1 now
uses the same strategy for provider checking during apply as it does when
verifying provider consistency against
[the dependency lock file](/language/files/dependency-lock)
during `terraform init`, which means `terraform apply` will return an error
if it detects that _any_ of the files in a provider's plugin package have
changed compared to when the plan was created.

In the unlikely event that you _do_ use a self-modifying provider plugin,
please consider other solutions to achieve the goals which motivated that,
which do not involve the provider modifying itself at runtime. If you aren't
sure, please open a GitHub issue to discuss your use-case.