How to control host from docker container?
For example, how to execute copied to host bash script?
This answer is just a more detailed version of Bradford Medeiros's solution, which for me as well turned out to be the best answer, so credit goes to him.
In his answer, he explains WHAT to do (named pipes) but not exactly HOW to do it.
I have to admit I didn't know what named pipes were when I read his solution. So I struggled to implement it (while it's actually very simple), but I did succeed.
So the point of my answer is just detailing the commands you need to run in order to get it working, but again, credit goes to him.
PART 1 - Testing the named pipe concept without docker
On the main host, chose the folder where you want to put your named pipe file, for instance /path/to/pipe/ and a pipe name, for instance mypipe, and then run:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The pipe is created.
Type
ls -l /path/to/pipe/mypipe
And check the access rights start with "p", such as
prw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 mypipe
Now run:
tail -f /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The terminal is now waiting for data to be sent into this pipe
Now open another terminal window.
And then run:
echo "hello world" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Check the first terminal (the one with tail -f), it should display "hello world"
PART 2 - Run commands through the pipe
On the host container, instead of running tail -f which just outputs whatever is sent as input, run this command that will execute it as commands:
eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"
Then, from the other terminal, try running:
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Go back to the first terminal and you should see the result of the ls -l command.
PART 3 - Make it listen forever
You may have noticed that in the previous part, right after ls -l output is displayed, it stops listening for commands.
Instead of eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)", run:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done
(you can nohup that)
Now you can send unlimited number of commands one after the other, they will all be executed, not just the first one.
PART 4 - Make it work even when reboot happens
The only caveat is if the host has to reboot, the "while" loop will stop working.
To handle reboot, here what I've done:
Put the while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done in a file called execpipe.sh with #!/bin/bash header
Don't forget to chmod +x it
Add it to crontab by running
crontab -e
And then adding
#reboot /path/to/execpipe.sh
At this point, test it: reboot your server, and when it's back up, echo some commands into the pipe and check if they are executed.
Of course, you aren't able to see the output of commands, so ls -l won't help, but touch somefile will help.
Another option is to modify the script to put the output in a file, such as:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)" &> /somepath/output.txt; done
Now you can run ls -l and the output (both stdout and stderr using &> in bash) should be in output.txt.
PART 5 - Make it work with docker
If you are using both docker compose and dockerfile like I do, here is what I've done:
Let's assume you want to mount the mypipe's parent folder as /hostpipe in your container
Add this:
VOLUME /hostpipe
in your dockerfile in order to create a mount point
Then add this:
volumes:
- /path/to/pipe:/hostpipe
in your docker compose file in order to mount /path/to/pipe as /hostpipe
Restart your docker containers.
PART 6 - Testing
Exec into your docker container:
docker exec -it <container> bash
Go into the mount folder and check you can see the pipe:
cd /hostpipe && ls -l
Now try running a command from within the container:
echo "touch this_file_was_created_on_main_host_from_a_container.txt" > /hostpipe/mypipe
And it should work!
WARNING: If you have an OSX (Mac OS) host and a Linux container, it won't work (explanation here https://stackoverflow.com/a/43474708/10018801 and issue here https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/483 ) because the pipe implementation is not the same, so what you write into the pipe from Linux can be read only by a Linux and what you write into the pipe from Mac OS can be read only by a Mac OS (this sentence might not be very accurate, but just be aware that a cross-platform issue exists).
For instance, when I run my docker setup in DEV from my Mac OS computer, the named pipe as explained above does not work. But in staging and production, I have Linux host and Linux containers, and it works perfectly.
PART 7 - Example from Node.JS container
Here is how I send a command from my Node.JS container to the main host and retrieve the output:
const pipePath = "/hostpipe/mypipe"
const outputPath = "/hostpipe/output.txt"
const commandToRun = "pwd && ls-l"
console.log("delete previous output")
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath)
console.log("writing to pipe...")
const wstream = fs.createWriteStream(pipePath)
wstream.write(commandToRun)
wstream.close()
console.log("waiting for output.txt...") //there are better ways to do that than setInterval
let timeout = 10000 //stop waiting after 10 seconds (something might be wrong)
const timeoutStart = Date.now()
const myLoop = setInterval(function () {
if (Date.now() - timeoutStart > timeout) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
console.log("timed out")
} else {
//if output.txt exists, read it
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
const data = fs.readFileSync(outputPath).toString()
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath) //delete the output file
console.log(data) //log the output of the command
}
}
}, 300);
Use a named pipe.
On the host OS, create a script to loop and read commands, and then you call eval on that.
Have the docker container read to that named pipe.
To be able to access the pipe, you need to mount it via a volume.
This is similar to the SSH mechanism (or a similar socket-based method), but restricts you properly to the host device, which is probably better. Plus you don't have to be passing around authentication information.
My only warning is to be cautious about why you are doing this. It's totally something to do if you want to create a method to self-upgrade with user input or whatever, but you probably don't want to call a command to get some config data, as the proper way would be to pass that in as args/volume into docker. Also, be cautious about the fact that you are evaling, so just give the permission model a thought.
Some of the other answers such as running a script. Under a volume won't work generically since they won't have access to the full system resources, but it might be more appropriate depending on your usage.
The solution I use is to connect to the host over SSH and execute the command like this:
ssh -l ${USERNAME} ${HOSTNAME} "${SCRIPT}"
UPDATE
As this answer keeps getting up votes, I would like to remind (and highly recommend), that the account which is being used to invoke the script should be an account with no permissions at all, but only executing that script as sudo (that can be done from sudoers file).
UPDATE: Named Pipes
The solution I suggested above was only the one I used while I was relatively new to Docker. Now in 2021 take a look on the answers that talk about Named Pipes. This seems to be a better solution.
However, nobody there mentioned anything about security. The script that will evaluate the commands sent through the pipe (the script that calls eval) must actually not use eval for the whole pipe output, but to handle specific cases and call the required commands according to the text sent, otherwise any command that can do anything can be sent through the pipe.
That REALLY depends on what you need that bash script to do!
For example, if the bash script just echoes some output, you could just do
docker run --rm -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
Another possibility is that you want the bash script to install some software- say the script to install docker-compose. you could do something like
docker run --rm -v /usr/bin:/usr/bin --privileged -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
But at this point you're really getting into having to know intimately what the script is doing to allow the specific permissions it needs on your host from inside the container.
My laziness led me to find the easiest solution that wasn't published as an answer here.
It is based on the great article by luc juggery.
All you need to do in order to gain a full shell to your linux host from within your docker container is:
docker run --privileged --pid=host -it alpine:3.8 \
nsenter -t 1 -m -u -n -i sh
Explanation:
--privileged : grants additional permissions to the container, it allows the container to gain access to the devices of the host (/dev)
--pid=host : allows the containers to use the processes tree of the Docker host (the VM in which the Docker daemon is running)
nsenter utility: allows to run a process in existing namespaces (the building blocks that provide isolation to containers)
nsenter (-t 1 -m -u -n -i sh) allows to run the process sh in the same isolation context as the process with PID 1.
The whole command will then provide an interactive sh shell in the VM
This setup has major security implications and should be used with cautions (if any).
Write a simple server python server listening on a port (say 8080), bind the port -p 8080:8080 with the container, make a HTTP request to localhost:8080 to ask the python server running shell scripts with popen, run a curl or writing code to make a HTTP request curl -d '{"foo":"bar"}' localhost:8080
#!/usr/bin/python
from BaseHTTPServer import BaseHTTPRequestHandler,HTTPServer
import subprocess
import json
PORT_NUMBER = 8080
# This class will handles any incoming request from
# the browser
class myHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_POST(self):
content_len = int(self.headers.getheader('content-length'))
post_body = self.rfile.read(content_len)
self.send_response(200)
self.end_headers()
data = json.loads(post_body)
# Use the post data
cmd = "your shell cmd"
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
p_status = p.wait()
(output, err) = p.communicate()
print "Command output : ", output
print "Command exit status/return code : ", p_status
self.wfile.write(cmd + "\n")
return
try:
# Create a web server and define the handler to manage the
# incoming request
server = HTTPServer(('', PORT_NUMBER), myHandler)
print 'Started httpserver on port ' , PORT_NUMBER
# Wait forever for incoming http requests
server.serve_forever()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print '^C received, shutting down the web server'
server.socket.close()
If you are not worried about security and you're simply looking to start a docker container on the host from within another docker container like the OP, you can share the docker server running on the host with the docker container by sharing it's listen socket.
Please see https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/security/#docker-daemon-attack-surface and see if your personal risk tolerance allows this for this particular application.
You can do this by adding the following volume args to your start command
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ...
or by sharing /var/run/docker.sock within your docker compose file like this:
version: '3'
services:
ci:
command: ...
image: ...
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
When you run the docker start command within your docker container,
the docker server running on your host will see the request and provision the sibling container.
credit: http://jpetazzo.github.io/2015/09/03/do-not-use-docker-in-docker-for-ci/
As Marcus reminds, docker is basically process isolation. Starting with docker 1.8, you can copy files both ways between the host and the container, see the doc of docker cp
https://docs.docker.com/reference/commandline/cp/
Once a file is copied, you can run it locally
docker run --detach-keys="ctrl-p" -it -v /:/mnt/rootdir --name testing busybox
# chroot /mnt/rootdir
#
I have a simple approach.
Step 1: Mount /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock (So you will be able to execute docker commands inside your container)
Step 2: Execute this below inside your container. The key part here is (--network host as this will execute from host context)
docker run -i --rm --network host -v /opt/test.sh:/test.sh alpine:3.7
sh /test.sh
test.sh should contain the some commands (ifconfig, netstat etc...) whatever you need.
Now you will be able to get host context output.
You can use the pipe concept, but use a file on the host and fswatch to accomplish the goal to execute a script on the host machine from a docker container. Like so (Use at your own risk):
#! /bin/bash
touch .command_pipe
chmod +x .command_pipe
# Use fswatch to execute a command on the host machine and log result
fswatch -o --event Updated .command_pipe | \
xargs -n1 -I "{}" .command_pipe >> .command_pipe_log &
docker run -it --rm \
--name alpine \
-w /home/test \
-v $PWD/.command_pipe:/dev/command_pipe \
alpine:3.7 sh
rm -rf .command_pipe
kill %1
In this example, inside the container send commands to /dev/command_pipe, like so:
/home/test # echo 'docker network create test2.network.com' > /dev/command_pipe
On the host, you can check if the network was created:
$ docker network ls | grep test2
8e029ec83afe test2.network.com bridge local
In my scenario I just ssh login the host (via host ip) within a container and then I can do anything I want to the host machine
I found answers using named pipes awesome. But I was wondering if there is a way to get the output of the executed command.
The solution is to create two named pipes:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_in
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_out
Then, the solution using a loop, as suggested by #Vincent, would become:
# on the host
while true; do eval "$(cat exec_in)" > exec_out; done
And then on the docker container, we can execute the command and get the output using:
# on the container
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/exec_in
cat /path/to/pipe/exec_out
If anyone interested, my need was to use a failover IP on the host from the container, I created this simple ruby method:
def fifo_exec(cmd)
exec_in = '/path/to/pipe/exec_in'
exec_out = '/path/to/pipe/exec_out'
%x[ echo #{cmd} > #{exec_in} ]
%x[ cat #{exec_out} ]
end
# example
fifo_exec "curl https://ip4.seeip.org"
Depending on the situation, this could be a helpful resource.
This uses a job queue (Celery) that can be run on the host, commands/data could be passed to this through Redis (or rabbitmq). In the example below, this is occurring in a django application (which is commonly dockerized).
https://www.codingforentrepreneurs.com/blog/celery-redis-django/
To expand on user2915097's response:
The idea of isolation is to be able to restrict what an application/process/container (whatever your angle at this is) can do to the host system very clearly. Hence, being able to copy and execute a file would really break the whole concept.
Yes. But it's sometimes necessary.
No. That's not the case, or Docker is not the right thing to use. What you should do is declare a clear interface for what you want to do (e.g. updating a host config), and write a minimal client/server to do exactly that and nothing more. Generally, however, this doesn't seem to be very desirable. In many cases, you should simply rethink your approach and eradicate that need. Docker came into an existence when basically everything was a service that was reachable using some protocol. I can't think of any proper usecase of a Docker container getting the rights to execute arbitrary stuff on the host.
I am working on a script that at a certain point needs to switch to the root user (executing "sudo rootsh" is the only accepted way to switch to root on our servers,) after which it will execute a certain command.
I am not sure what I am missing, but the script simply ignores the part when it should switch to root and continues executing the commands with the user that started the script.
If you check the generated whoami.txt file, you will notice that the user is not root. Please keep in mind that the user executing the script can switch to root without any issue while executing the sudo rootsh command.
Here is the code I am using:
import subprocess
def switch_user():
commands = '''
sudo rootsh
whoami > whoami.txt
sysctl -a | grep kernel.msgmni'''
process = subprocess.Popen('/bin/bash', stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
out, err = process.communicate(commands.encode('utf-8'))
switch_user()
Any idea what I am doing wrong? Thanks.
Instead of Popening a subprocess to run bash, and from that opening a separate privileged shell, Popen the command sudo rootsh directly. If that succeeds (requires that the user be permitted to sudo rootsh without providing a password) then deliver the rest of the commands by communicating with the subprocess.
That would be something along these lines:
import subprocess
def switch_user():
# These shell commands will be used as input to the root shell
commands = '''whoami > whoami.txt
sysctl -a | grep kernel.msgmni'''
# Launch the root shell
process = subprocess.Popen('/usr/bin/sudo rootsh',
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
# Send the shell's input to it and receive back its output
out, err = process.communicate(commands.encode('utf-8'))
switch_user()
You may need to modify that for your purposes. In particular, if your sudo command lives at a different location then you may need to modify the path to it. And I emphasize again that this approach depends on being able to obtain a root shell without providing a password. Sudo can be configured that way, but it is not the default.
I finally managed to make this work after doing a more thorough investigation with the guys from the OS team. I'll post this, maybe it would be useful for somebody in the future:
import os
os.system("sudo rootsh -i -u root 'sysctl -a | grep kernel.msgmni' > parameter_value.txt")
The key was to insert the -i and -u options:
-i [command]
The -i (simulate initial login) option runs the shell specified by the password database entry of the target user as a login
shell.
This means that login-specific resource files such as .profile or .login will be read by the shell. If a command is
specified, it is
passed to the shell for execution via the shell's -c option. If no command is specified, an interactive shell is executed.
sudo
attempts to change to that user's home directory before running the shell. The security policy shall initialize the
environment to a
minimal set of variables, similar to what is present when a user logs in. The Command Environment section in the
sudoers(5) manual documents how the -i option affects the environment in which a command is run when the sudoers policy is in use.
-u user
The -u (user) option causes sudo to run the specified command as a user other than root. To specify a uid instead
of a user name, #uid.
When running commands as a uid, many shells require that the # be escaped with a backslash ('\'). Security policies may
restrict uids
to those listed in the password database. The sudoers policy allows uids that are not in the password database as
long as the targetpw
option is not set. Other security policies may not support this.
Thank you all for your answers :)
I am trying to SSH into another host from within a python script and run a command that requires sudo.
I'm able to ssh from the python script as follows:
import subprocess
import sys
import json
HOST="hostname"
# Ports are handled in ~/.ssh/config since we use OpenSSH
COMMAND="sudo command"
ssh = subprocess.Popen(["ssh", "%s" % HOST, COMMAND],
shell=False,
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
result = ssh.stdout.readlines()
if result == []:
error = ssh.stderr.readlines()
print(error)
else:
print(result)
But I want to run a command like this after sshing :
extract_response = subprocess.check_output(['sudo -u username internal_cmd',
'-m', 'POST',
'-u', 'jobRun/-/%s/%s' % (job_id, dataset_date)])
return json.loads(extract_response.decode('utf-8'))[0]['id']
How do I do that?
Also, I don't want to be providing the sudo password every time I run this sudo command, for that I have added this command (i.e., internal_cmd from above) at the end of visudo in the new host I'm trying to ssh into. But still when just typing this command directly in the terminal like this:
ssh -t hostname sudo -u username internal_cmd -m POST -u/-/1234/2019-01-03
I am being prompted to give the password. Why is this happening?
You can pipe the password by using the -S flag, that tells sudo to read the password from the standard input.
echo 'password' | sudo -S [command]
You may need to play around with how you put in the ssh command, but this should do what you need.
Warning: you may know this already... but never store your password directly in your code, especially if you plan to push code to something like Github. If you are unaware of this, look into using environment variables or storing the password in a separate file.
If you don't want to worry about where to store the sudo password, you might consider adding the script user to the sudoers list with sudo access to only the command you want to run along with the no password required option. See sudoers(5) man page.
You can further restrict command access by prepending a "command" option to the beginning of your authorized_keys entry. See sshd(8) man page.
If you can, disable ssh password authentication to require only ssh key authentication. See sshd_config(5) man page.
I have a nat and it has various server
So from my local server I want to go to nat and then from nat i have to ssh to other machines
Local-->NAT(abcuser#publicIP with key 1)-->server1(xyzuser#localIP with key 2)
nat has different ssh key
and each of the server has different ssh key
how can i accomplish this type of multihop ssh using fabric
I tried using env.roledefs feature but it doesnt seems to be working
also I am not sure how to define two ssh keys.I know we can define a list of keys with env.key_filename but issue is will it check each key with each server?How can I be more specific and match a key with one server only
I have tried using command from my local machine
fab deploy -g 'ec2-user#54.251.151.39' -i '/home/aman/Downloads/aws_oms.pem'
and my script is
from __future__ import with_statement
from fabric.api import local, run, cd, env, execute
env.hosts=['ubuntu#10.0.0.77']
env.key_filename=['/home/ec2-user/varnish_cache.pem']
def deploy():
run("uname -a")
It's possible. Double hop to 10.0.0.2 (and list files) via gateway hop 10.0.0.1. Basically, you simply nest the connections with the gateway parameter.
# coding: utf-8
from fabric import Connection
path = '/'
conn1 = Connection(host='user1#10.0.0.1', connect_kwargs={'password': '***'})
conn2 = Connection(host='user2#10.0.0.2', connect_kwargs={'password': '***'}, gateway=conn1)
result = conn2.run(f'''cd {path} && ls -al''', hide=True)
conn2.close()
conn1.close()
msg = "Ran {0.command!r} on {0.connection.host}, got stdout:\n{0.stdout}"
print(msg.format(result))
Please remember to run the SSH connection manually once to introduce the servers to each other!
Install via
pip3 install --upgrade fabric
pip3 install cryptography==2.4.2 # optional to hide some annoying warnings
http://docs.fabfile.org/en/latest/concepts/networking.html
Python 3.6+.
In order to connect to remote hosts via an intermediate server, you can use the --gateway command-line option :
http://docs.fabfile.org/en/latest/usage/fab.html#cmdoption-g
Or, alternatively, set the env.gateway variable inside your fabfile :
http://docs.fabfile.org/en/latest/usage/env.html#gateway
For more detail information, see:
http://docs.fabfile.org/en/stable/concepts/networking.html#ssh-gateways
Anyone has any Fabric recipe that shows how to connect to EC2 using the pem file?
I tried writing it with this manner:
Python Fabric run command returns "binascii.Error: Incorrect padding"
But I'm faced with some encoding issue, when I execute the run() function.
To use the pem file I generally add the pem to the ssh agent, then simply refer to the username and host:
ssh-add ~/.ssh/ec2key.pem
fab -H ubuntu#ec2-host deploy
or specify the env information (without the key) like the example you linked to:
env.user = 'ubuntu'
env.hosts = [
'ec2-host'
]
and run as normal:
fab deploy
Without addressing your encoding issue, you might put your EC2 stuff into an ssh config file:
~/.ssh/config
or, if global:
/etc/ssh_config
There you can specify your host, ip address, user, identify file, etc., so it's a simple matter of:
ssh myhost
Example:
Host myhost
User ubuntu
HostName 174.129.254.215
IdentityFile ~/.ssh/mykey.pem
For more details: man ssh_config
Another thing you can do is set the key_filename in the env variable: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5327496/1729558