Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ec2] Fix design flaw in Volume grants by ResourceTag #9114

Closed
1 of 2 tasks
ddneilson opened this issue Jul 16, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #9115
Closed
1 of 2 tasks

[ec2] Fix design flaw in Volume grants by ResourceTag #9114

ddneilson opened this issue Jul 16, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #9115
Assignees
Labels
@aws-cdk/aws-ec2 Related to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud effort/small Small work item – less than a day of effort feature-request A feature should be added or improved. in-progress This issue is being actively worked on. p1

Comments

@ddneilson
Copy link
Contributor

I designed & wrote the code for the L2 Volume construct. My design for the grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag() and grantDetachVolumeByResourceTag() is flawed.

Those functions have three design requirements:

  1. To allow an instance to attach a Volume to itself;
  2. To allow an instance to attach multiple, different, volumes; and
  3. To allow the same volume to be attached to different instances via separate grants without clobbering other grants.

Since the implementation mechanism for this is a ResourceTag condition on the policy, the later two requirements mean that we must have both a unique tag key and a unique tag value for each separate permission grant (i.e. separate call to the volume's grant function).

The original design had the tag key being derived from only the volume, the tag value from only the instance(s), and allowed for overriding the tag key via a parameter to allow for the same volume to attach to multiple instances over separate grants. Put simply, this is an overly complicated design and I should never have submitted it.

Use Case

Less kludgy code in applications that use the ResourceTag-conditioned grants.

Proposed Solution

In hindsight, we should be deriving both the resource tag and value from the combination of the instance(s) and the volume's unique properties. This completely eliminates the need for the tag key override.

The current design results in code like:

    // To be able to mount the *same* volume to multiple instances we must provide a tag suffix to the permission grant
    // that is unique to this particular combination of volume + mount target.
    function hashUniqueIds(resources: IConstruct[]): string {
      const md5 = crypto.createHash('md5');
      resources.forEach(res => md5.update(res.node.uniqueId));
      return md5.digest('hex');
    }
    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target], hashUniqueIds([target, this.props.blockVolume]));

It is much more desirable for this to be simply:

    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target]);

Other

I have a PR prepared for this, and will be submitting it immediately after filing this ticket.

  • 👋 I may be able to implement this feature request
  • ⚠️ This feature might incur a breaking change

This is a 🚀 Feature Request

@ddneilson ddneilson added feature-request A feature should be added or improved. needs-triage This issue or PR still needs to be triaged. labels Jul 16, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot added the @aws-cdk/aws-ec2 Related to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud label Jul 16, 2020
@SomayaB SomayaB added the in-progress This issue is being actively worked on. label Jul 16, 2020
@ericzbeard ericzbeard added p1 and removed needs-triage This issue or PR still needs to be triaged. labels Jul 16, 2020
@ericzbeard ericzbeard removed their assignment Aug 3, 2020
@rix0rrr rix0rrr added the effort/small Small work item – less than a day of effort label Aug 4, 2020
@mergify mergify bot closed this as completed in #9115 Aug 10, 2020
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 10, 2020
I designed & wrote the code for the L2 Volume construct. My design for the `grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag()` and `grantDetachVolumeByResourceTag()` is flawed. 

Those functions have three design requirements:
1) To allow an instance to attach a Volume to itself; 
2) To allow an instance to attach multiple, different, volumes; and
3) To allow the same volume to be attached to different instances via separate grants without clobbering other grants.

Since the implementation mechanism for this is a `ResourceTag` condition on the policy, the later two requirements mean that we must have both a unique tag key and a unique tag value for each separate permission grant (i.e. separate call to the volume's grant function).

The original design had the tag key being derived from only the volume, the tag value from only the instance(s), and allowed for overriding the tag key via a parameter to allow for the same volume to attach to multiple instances over separate grants. 

In hindsight, we should be deriving both the resource tag and value from the combination of the instance(s) and the volume's unique properties. This completely eliminates the need for the tag key override.


The current design results in code like:
```ts
    // To be able to mount the *same* volume to multiple instances we must provide a tag suffix to the permission grant
    // that is unique to this particular combination of volume + mount target.
    function hashUniqueIds(resources: IConstruct[]): string {
      const md5 = crypto.createHash('md5');
      resources.forEach(res => md5.update(res.node.uniqueId));
      return md5.digest('hex');
    }
    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target], hashUniqueIds([target, this.props.blockVolume]));
```

It is much more desirable for this to be simply:
```ts
    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target]);
```

Resolves: #9114

----

*By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
eladb pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 10, 2020
I designed & wrote the code for the L2 Volume construct. My design for the `grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag()` and `grantDetachVolumeByResourceTag()` is flawed. 

Those functions have three design requirements:
1) To allow an instance to attach a Volume to itself; 
2) To allow an instance to attach multiple, different, volumes; and
3) To allow the same volume to be attached to different instances via separate grants without clobbering other grants.

Since the implementation mechanism for this is a `ResourceTag` condition on the policy, the later two requirements mean that we must have both a unique tag key and a unique tag value for each separate permission grant (i.e. separate call to the volume's grant function).

The original design had the tag key being derived from only the volume, the tag value from only the instance(s), and allowed for overriding the tag key via a parameter to allow for the same volume to attach to multiple instances over separate grants. 

In hindsight, we should be deriving both the resource tag and value from the combination of the instance(s) and the volume's unique properties. This completely eliminates the need for the tag key override.


The current design results in code like:
```ts
    // To be able to mount the *same* volume to multiple instances we must provide a tag suffix to the permission grant
    // that is unique to this particular combination of volume + mount target.
    function hashUniqueIds(resources: IConstruct[]): string {
      const md5 = crypto.createHash('md5');
      resources.forEach(res => md5.update(res.node.uniqueId));
      return md5.digest('hex');
    }
    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target], hashUniqueIds([target, this.props.blockVolume]));
```

It is much more desirable for this to be simply:
```ts
    this.props.blockVolume.grantAttachVolumeByResourceTag(target.grantPrincipal, [target]);
```

Resolves: #9114

----

*By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
@aws-cdk/aws-ec2 Related to Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud effort/small Small work item – less than a day of effort feature-request A feature should be added or improved. in-progress This issue is being actively worked on. p1
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants