fix(ec2): cannot allow all ipv6 traffic #22279
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This PR fixes an issue where it was impossible to add ipv6 egress rules without an escape hatch. The SecurityGroup construct will now track ipv6 and ipv4 separately. This matches the default behavior of CloudFormation and the underlying EC2 API. By default when you create a SecurityGroup (either via CFN or console) it will create an allow all ipv4 rule. If you later add a more specific rule CloudFormation will remove the ipv4 allow all rule. Since the default behavior is to _not_ add an allow all for ipv6, the SecurityGroup construct will also not add it by default. fixes #7094
|
|
github-actions
bot
added
effort/small
aws-cdk-automation
previously requested changes
Sep 28, 2022
aws-cdk-automation
dismissed
their stale review
Pull Request updated. Dissmissing previous PRLinter Review.
aws-cdk-automation
previously requested changes
Sep 28, 2022
corymhall
added
the
pr-linter/exempt-integ-test
|
Added |
aws-cdk-automation
dismissed
their stale review
Pull Request updated. Dissmissing previous PRLinter Review.
rix0rrr
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2022
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
AWS CodeBuild CI Report
Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository |
|
Thank you for contributing! Your pull request will be updated from main and then merged automatically (do not update manually, and be sure to allow changes to be pushed to your fork). |
4 tasks
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2022
Introduced this functionality in #22279, but I didn't add an integration test so it didn't actually work. This PR fixes the mistake _and_ adds an integration test like I should have done the first time. fixes #22407 ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)? *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
arewa
pushed a commit
to arewa/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2022
This PR fixes an issue where it was impossible to add ipv6 egress rules without an escape hatch. The SecurityGroup construct will now track ipv6 and ipv4 separately. This matches the default behavior of CloudFormation and the underlying EC2 API.
By default when you create a SecurityGroup (either via CFN or console) it will create an allow all ipv4 rule. If you later add a more specific rule CloudFormation will remove the ipv4 allow all rule. Since the default behavior is to _not_ add an allow all for ipv6, the SecurityGroup construct will also not add it by default.
There is an edge case that this does break, but I'm not sure if it is a valid case. Previously it would have been possible to do the following (only allow all ipv6 outbound). But we don't want to allow that for the same reason we don't allow it for ipv4 (it will be overwritten by more restrictive rules).
```ts
const sg = new SecurityGroup(this, 'Sg', {
allowAllOutbound: false,
});
sg.addEgressRule(Peer.anyIpv6(), Port.allTraffic());
```
fixes aws#7094
----
### All Submissions:
* [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies:
* [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies)
### New Features
* [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)?
* [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)?
*By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
arewa
pushed a commit
to arewa/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 8, 2022
…22414) Introduced this functionality in aws#22279, but I didn't add an integration test so it didn't actually work. This PR fixes the mistake _and_ adds an integration test like I should have done the first time. fixes aws#22407 ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)? *By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
homakk
pushed a commit
to homakk/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2022
This PR fixes an issue where it was impossible to add ipv6 egress rules without an escape hatch. The SecurityGroup construct will now track ipv6 and ipv4 separately. This matches the default behavior of CloudFormation and the underlying EC2 API.
By default when you create a SecurityGroup (either via CFN or console) it will create an allow all ipv4 rule. If you later add a more specific rule CloudFormation will remove the ipv4 allow all rule. Since the default behavior is to _not_ add an allow all for ipv6, the SecurityGroup construct will also not add it by default.
There is an edge case that this does break, but I'm not sure if it is a valid case. Previously it would have been possible to do the following (only allow all ipv6 outbound). But we don't want to allow that for the same reason we don't allow it for ipv4 (it will be overwritten by more restrictive rules).
```ts
const sg = new SecurityGroup(this, 'Sg', {
allowAllOutbound: false,
});
sg.addEgressRule(Peer.anyIpv6(), Port.allTraffic());
```
fixes aws#7094
----
### All Submissions:
* [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)
### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies:
* [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies)
### New Features
* [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)?
* [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)?
*By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license*
homakk
pushed a commit
to homakk/aws-cdk
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2022
…22414) Introduced this functionality in aws#22279, but I didn't add an integration test so it didn't actually work. This PR fixes the mistake _and_ adds an integration test like I should have done the first time. fixes aws#22407 ---- ### All Submissions: * [ ] Have you followed the guidelines in our [Contributing guide?](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) ### Adding new Unconventional Dependencies: * [ ] This PR adds new unconventional dependencies following the process described [here](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md/#adding-new-unconventional-dependencies) ### New Features * [ ] Have you added the new feature to an [integration test](https://github.com/aws/aws-cdk/blob/main/INTEGRATION_TESTS.md)? * [ ] Did you use `yarn integ` to deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e. `yarn integ` without `--dry-run`)? *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
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR fixes an issue where it was impossible to add ipv6 egress rules without an escape hatch. The SecurityGroup construct will now track ipv6 and ipv4 separately. This matches the default behavior of CloudFormation and the underlying EC2 API.
By default when you create a SecurityGroup (either via CFN or console) it will create an allow all ipv4 rule. If you later add a more specific rule CloudFormation will remove the ipv4 allow all rule. Since the default behavior is to not add an allow all for ipv6, the SecurityGroup construct will also not add it by default.
There is an edge case that this does break, but I'm not sure if it is a valid case. Previously it would have been possible to do the following (only allow all ipv6 outbound). But we don't want to allow that for the same reason we don't allow it for ipv4 (it will be overwritten by more restrictive rules).
fixes #7094
All Submissions:
Adding new Unconventional Dependencies:
New Features
yarn integto deploy the infrastructure and generate the snapshot (i.e.yarn integwithout--dry-run)?By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license