Skip to content

[AGENTCFG-14] Updating AWS Secrets and SSM documentation to match suggested guidelines #40

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 5, 2025

Conversation

rahulkaukuntla
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

We want to avoid hardcoding any secret information in the config, and so after QA-ing the secret backend for AWS Secrets and SSM, I am updating the documentation so that it matches the suggested way of retrieving secrets from these services.

Motivation

Additional Notes

Possible Drawbacks / Trade-offs

Describe how to test/QA your changes

@@ -4,6 +4,33 @@

## Configuration

### IAM Permission needed

Add this permission as a permission policy to the user role that has been attached to the EC2 instance upon which the given agent is running.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should give example, explain the logic and redirect to the official docs. Customers should not just copy/paste our example without understanding what they're doing. I will also add a direct link to AWS Secret IAM documentation in there.

Suggested change
Add this permission as a permission policy to the user role that has been attached to the EC2 instance upon which the given agent is running.
Create a similar IAM as the example bellow to allow resources to access a specific secrets and then attach it to the EC2 instance upon which the given agent is running. You can use similar IAM to allow your ECS/EKS Agent pod to access the required secrets. Please refer to [AWS Secrets official documentation](insert here link to docs) for more detail on allowing resources to access secrets.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've made most of the changes that you suggested. The thing is that this Permission policy step that is referred to in the secrets.md and ssm.md does not differ based on the service (EC2, ECS, etc), so I don't think that it should be specified here that you need to make a different policy if you are using a different service. The service-specific instructions are in the aws.md doc. In general, the aws.md doc is where i envision most of the setup instructions to be. I only included this permission policy step in the secrets.md and ssm.md docs, as the permission policy is the only step that has different values if you are using secrets vs ssm.

docs/aws/ssm.md Outdated
@@ -6,22 +6,31 @@

### IAM Permission needed

Add this permission as a permission policy to the user role that has been attached to the EC2 instance upon which the given agent is running.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here, we should highlight that this is an example and redirect to the correct AWS docs. We should also change permission for IAM for clarity and explain they can do the same for other types of resources like ECS/EKS/Fargate...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Refer to this comment

@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla marked this pull request as ready for review April 30, 2025 18:29
@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla requested a review from a team as a code owner April 30, 2025 18:29
@rahulkaukuntla rahulkaukuntla merged commit f80658f into main May 5, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants