My PHP image entry point is something like below. The entrypoint runs as root and it is necessary in my case . So any command I run on my container runs as root. For some particular command I want to run it as another user e.g when someone try to execute docker exec -it php composer install composer should run as another user set in entrypoint. when someone try to execute docker exec -it php drush status drush should run as another user set in entry point. Probably a if or switch statement inside entrypoint can help me. I was trying something like this https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/476155/how-to-pass-multiple-parameters-to-su-user-c-command but passing parameter with double dash (--) breaks some command.
Dockerfile
COPY entrypoint.sh /
ENTRYPOINT ["/entrypoint.sh"]
CMD ["php-fpm"]
entrypoint.sh
#!/bin/sh
set -e
# first arg is `-f` or `--some-option`
if [ "${1#-}" != "$1" ]; then
set -- php-fpm "$#"
fi
exec "$#"
I'm not sure that I understand your use-case, but I use su-exec to drop privileges down to a non-root user within my entrypoint script. Most commonly I have to use this because I need to change permissions on a bind-mounted volume (usually /var/run/docker.sock).
Essentially I will do root level operations in my entrypoint, then drop down to a non-root user when executing the container service.
This blog explains the concept using gosu, su-exec is a refactor of gosu in C that is 10kb vs 1.8MB: https://denibertovic.com/posts/handling-permissions-with-docker-volumes/
Do note the security issues, which AFAIK are not a factor when using this in containers.
Related
I am working on hardening our docker images, which I already have a bit of a weak understanding of. With that being said, the current step I am on is preventing the user from running the container as root. To me, that says "when a user runs 'docker exec -it my-container bash', he shall be an unprivileged user" (correct me if I'm wrong).
When I start up my container via docker-compose, the start script that is run needs to be as root since it deals with importing certs and mounted files (created externally and seen through a volume mount). After that is done, I would like the user to be 'appuser' for any future access. This question seems to match pretty well what I'm looking for, but I am using docker-compose, not docker run: How to disable the root access of a docker container?
This seems to be relevant, as the startup command differs from let's say tomcat. We are running a Spring Boot application that we start up with a simple 'java -jar jarFile', and the image is built using maven's dockerfile-maven-plugin. With that being said, should I be changing the user to an unprivileged user before running that, or still after?
I believe changing the user inside of the Dockerfile instead of the start script will do this... but then it will not run the start script as root, thus blowing up on calls that require root. I had messed with using ENTRYPOINT as well, but could have been doing it wrong there. Similarly, using "user:" in the yml file seemed to make the start.sh script run as that user instead of root, so that wasn't working.
Dockerfile:
FROM parent/image:latest
ENV APP_HOME /apphome
ENV APP_USER appuser
ENV APP_GROUP appgroup
# Folder containing our application, i.e. jar file, resources, and scripts.
# This comes from unpacking our maven dependency
ADD target/classes/app ${APP_HOME}/
# Primarily just our start script, but some others
ADD target/classes/scripts /scripts/
# Need to create a folder that will be used at runtime
RUN mkdir -p ${APP_HOME}/data && \
chmod +x /scripts/*.sh && \
chmod +x ${APP_HOME}/*.*
# Create unprivileged user
RUN groupadd -r ${APP_GROUP} && \
useradd -g ${APP_GROUP} -d ${APP_HOME} -s /sbin/nologin -c "Unprivileged User" ${APP_USER} && \
chown -R ${APP_USER}:${APP_GROUP} ${APP_HOME}
WORKDIR $APP_HOME
EXPOSE 8443
CMD /opt/scripts/start.sh
start.sh script:
#!/bin/bash
# setup SSL, modify java command, etc
# run our java application
java -jar "boot.jar"
# Switch users to always be unprivileged from here on out?
# Whatever "hardening" wants... Should this be before starting our application?
exec su -s "/bin/bash" $APP_USER
app.yml file:
version: '3.3'
services:
app:
image: app_image:latest
labels:
c2core.docker.compose.display-name: My Application
c2core.docker.compose.profiles: a_profile
volumes:
- "data_mount:/apphome/data"
- "cert_mount:/certs"
hostname: some-hostname
domainname: some-domain
ports:
- "8243:8443"
environment:
- some_env_vars
depends_on:
- another-app
networks:
a_network:
aliases:
- some-network
networks:
a_network:
driver: bridge
volumes:
data_mount:
cert_mount:
docker-compose shell script:
docker-compose -f app.yml -f another-app.yml $#
What I would expect is that anyone trying to access the container internally will be doing so as appuser and not root. The goal is to prevent someone from messing with things they shouldn't (i.e. docker itself).
What is happening is that the script will change users after the app has started (proven via an echo command), but it doesn't seem to be maintained. If I exec into it, I'm still root.
As David mentions, once someone has access to the docker socket (either via API or with the docker CLI), that typically means they have root access to your host. It's trivial to use that access to run a privileged container with host namespaces and volume mounts that let the attacker do just about anything.
When you need to initialize a container with steps that run as root, I do recommend gosu over something like su since su was not designed for containers and will leave a process running as the root pid. Make sure that you exec the call to gosu and that will eliminate anything running as root. However, the user you start the container as is the same as the user used for docker exec, and since you need to start as root, your exec will run as root unless you override it with a -u flag.
There are additional steps you can take to lock down docker in general:
Use user namespaces. These are defined on the entire daemon, require that you destroy all containers, and pull images again, since the uid mapping affects the storage of image layers. The user namespace offsets the uid's used by docker so that root inside the container is not root on the host, while inside the container you can still bind to low numbered ports and run administrative activities.
Consider authz plugins. Open policy agent and Twistlock are two that I know of, though I don't know if either would allow you to restrict the user of a docker exec command. They likely require that you give users a certificate to connect to docker rather than giving them direct access to the docker socket since the socket doesn't have any user details included in API requests it receives.
Consider rootless docker. This is still experimental, but since docker is not running as root, it has no access back to the host to perform root activities, mitigating many of the issues seen when containers are run as root.
You intrinsically can't prevent root-level access to your container.
Anyone who can run any Docker command at all can always run any of these three commands:
# Get a shell, as root, in a running container
docker exec -it -u 0 container_name /bin/sh
# Launch a new container, running a root shell, on some image
docker run --rm -it -u 0 --entrypoint /bin/sh image_name
# Get an interactive shell with unrestricted root access to the host
# filesystem (cd /host/var/lib/docker)
docker run --rm -it -v /:/host busybox /bin/sh
It is generally considered best practice to run your container as a non-root user, either with a USER directive in the Dockerfile or running something like gosu in an entrypoint script, like what you show. You can't prevent root access, though, in the face of a privileged user who's sufficiently interested in getting it.
When the docker is normally run from one host, you can do some steps.
Make sure it is not run from another host by looking for a secret in a directory mounted from the accepted host.
Change the .bashrc of the users on the host, so that they will start running the docker as soon as they login. When your users needs to do other things on the host, give them an account without docker access and let them sudo to a special user with docker access (or use a startdocker script with a setuid flag).
Start the docker with a script that you made and hardened, something like startserver.
#!/bin/bash
settings() {
# Add mount dirs. The homedir in the docker will be different from the one on the host.
mountdirs="-v /mirrored_home:/home -v /etc/dockercheck:/etc/dockercheck:ro"
usroptions="--user $(id -u):$(id -g) -v /etc/passwd:/etc/passwd:ro"
usroptions="${usroptions} -v/etc/shadow:/etc/shadow:ro -v /etc/group:/etc/group:ro"
}
# call function that fills special variables
settings
image="my_image:latest"
docker run -ti --rm ${usroptions} ${mountdirs} -w $HOME --entrypoint=/bin/bash "${image}"
Adding a variable --env HOSTSERVER=${host} won't help hardening, on another server one can add --env HOSTSERVER=servername_that_will_be_checked.
When the user logins to the host, the startserver will be called and the docker started. After the call to the startserver add exit to the .bash_rc.
Not sure if this work but you can try. Allow sudo access for user/group with limited execution command. Sudo configuration only allow to execute docker-cli. Create a shell script by the name docker-cli with content that runs docker command, eg docker "$#". In this file, check the argument and enforce user to provide switch --user or -u when executing exec or attach command of docker. Also make sure validate the user don't provide a switch saying -u root. Eg
sudo docker-cli exec -it containerid sh (failed)
sudo docker-cli exec -u root ... (failed)
sudo docker-cli exec -u mysql ... (Passed)
You can even limit the docker command a user can run inside this shell script
I'm having trouble understanding or seeing some working version of using a bash script as an Entrypoint for a Docker container. I've been trying numerous things for about 5 hours now.
Even from this official Docker blog, using a bash-script as an entry-point still doesn't work.
Dockerfile
FROM debian:stretch
COPY docker-entrypoint.sh /usr/local/bin/
RUN ln -s /usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh / # backwards compat
ENTRYPOINT ["docker-entrypoint.sh"]
CMD ["postgres"]
docker-entrypoint.sh
#!/bin/bash
set -e
if [ "$1" = 'postgres' ]; then
chown -R postgres "$PGDATA"
if [ -z "$(ls -A "$PGDATA")" ]; then
gosu postgres initdb
fi
exec gosu postgres "$#"
fi
exec "$#"
build.sh
docker build -t test .
run.sh
docker service create \
--name test \
test
Despite many efforts, I can't seem to get Dockerfile using an Entrypoint as a bash script that doesn't continuously restart and fail repeatedly.
My understanding is that exec "$#" was suppose to keep the container form immediately exiting, but I'm not sure if that's dependent some other process within the script failing.
I've tried using a docker-entrypoint.sh script that simply looked like this:
#!/bin/bash
exec "$#"
And since that also failed, I think that rules out something else going wrong inside the script being the cause of the failure.
What's also frustrating is there are no logs, either from docker service logs test or docker logs [container_id], and I can't seem to find anything useful in docker inspect [container_id].
I'm having trouble understanding everyone's confidence in exec "$#". I don't want to resort to using something like tail -f /dev/null or using a command at docker run. I was hoping that there would be some consistent, reliable way that a docker-entrypoint.sh script could reliably used to start services that I could run with docker run as well for other things for services, but even on Docker's official blog and countless questions here and blogs from other sites, I can't seem get a single example to work.
I would really appreciate some insight into what I'm missing here.
$# is just a string of the command line arguments. You are providing none, so it is executing a null string. That exits and will kill the docker. However, the exec command will always exit the running script - it destroys the current shell and starts a new one, it doesn't keep it running.
What I think you want to do is keep calling this script in kind of a recursive way. To actually have the script call itself, the line would be:
exec $0
$0 is the name of the bash file (or function name, if in a function). In this case it would be the name of your script.
Also, I am curious your desire not to use tail -f /dev/null? Creating a new shell over and over as fast as the script can go is not more performant. I am guessing you want this script to run over and over to just check your if condition.
In that case, a while(1) loop would probably work.
What you show, in principle, should work, and is one of the standard Docker patterns.
The interaction between ENTRYPOINT and CMD is pretty straightforward. If you provide both, then the main container process is whatever ENTRYPOINT (or docker run --entrypoint) specifies, and it is passed CMD (or the command at the end of docker run) as arguments. In this context, ending an entrypoint script with exec "$#" just means "replace me with the CMD as the main container process".
So, the pattern here is
Do some initial setup, like chowning a possibly-external data directory; then
exec "$#" to run whatever was passed as the command.
In your example there are a couple of things worth checking; it won't run as shown.
Whatever you provide as the ENTRYPOINT needs to obey the usual rules for executable commands: if it's a bare command, it must be in $PATH; it must have the executable bit set in its file permissions; if it's a script, its interpreter must also exist; if it's a binary, it must be statically linked or all of its shared library dependencies must be in the image already. For your script you might need to make it executable if it isn't already
RUN chmod +x /usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh
The other thing with this setup is that (definitionally) if the ENTRYPOINT exits, the whole container exits, and the Bourne shell set -e directive tells the script to exit on any error. In the artifacts in the question, gosu isn't a standard part of the debian base image, so your entrypoint will fail (and your container will exit) trying to run that command. (That won't affect the very simple case though.)
Finally, if you run into trouble running a container under an orchestration system like Docker Swarm or Kubernetes, one of your first steps should be to run the same container, locally, in the foreground: use docker run without the -d option and see what it prints out. For example:
% docker build .
% docker run --rm c5fb7da1c7c1
docker: Error response from daemon: OCI runtime create failed: container_linux.go:345: starting container process caused "exec: \"docker-entrypoint.sh\": executable file not found in $PATH": unknown.
ERRO[0000] error waiting for container: context canceled
% chmod +x docker-entrypoint.sh
% docker build .
% docker run --rm f5a239f2758d
/usr/local/bin/docker-entrypoint.sh: line 3: exec: postgres: not found
(Using the Dockerfile and short docker-entrypoint.sh from the question, and using the final image ID from docker build . in those docker run commands.)
After trying to test Dockerfiles with Dockerspec, I finally had an issue I can't resolve properly.
The problem is, I think, from Docker itself ; If I understand its process, an Entrypoint is only executed at run, but if the container stay started and I launch an "exec" command in, it's not re-called.
I think it's the wanted behavior.
But if the Entrypoint is a "gosu" script which precede all my commands, it's a problem...
Example
"myImage" has this Entrypoint :
gosu 1000:1000 "$#"
If I launch : docker run -it myImage id -u
The output is "1000".
If I start a container : docker run -it myImage bash
In this container, id -u outputs "1000".
But if I start a new command in this container, it starts a new shell, and does not execute the Entrypoint, so : docker exec CONTAINER_ID id -u
Output "0", because the new shell is started as "root".
It there a way to execute each time the entrypoint ?
Or re-use the shell open ?
Or a better way to do that ?
Or, maybe I haven't understand anything ? ;)
Thanks !
EDIT
After reading solutions proposed here, I understand that the problem is not how Docker works but how Serverspec works with ; my goal is to directly test a command as a docker run argument, but Serverspec start a container and test commands with docker exec.
So, the best solution is to found how get the stdout of the docker run executed by Serverspec.
But, in my personal use-case, the best solution is maybe to not use Gosu but --user flag :)
if your goal is to run the docker exec with a specific user inside of the container, you can use the --user option.
docker exec --user myuser container-name [... your command here]
If you want to run gosu every time, you can specify that as the command with docker exec
docke exec container-name gosu 1000:1000 [your actual command here]
in my experience, the best way to encapsulate this into something easily re-usable is with a .sh script (or .cmd file in windows).
drop this into a file in your local folder... maybe gs for example.
#! /bin/sh
docker exec container-name gosu 1000:1000 "$#"
give it execute permissions with chmod +x gs and then run it with ./gs from the local folder
How can I include my own shell script CMD on container start/restart/attach, without removing the CMD used by an inherited image?
I am using this, which does execute my script fine, but appears to overwrite the PHP CMD:
FROM php
COPY start.sh /usr/local/bin
CMD ["/usr/local/bin/start.sh"]
What should I do differently? I am avoiding the prospect of copy/pasting the ENTRYPOINT or CMD of the parent image, and maybe that's not a good approach.
As mentioned in the comments, there's no built-in solution to this. From the Dockerfile, you can't see the value of the current CMD or ENTRYPOINT. Having a run-parts solution is nice if you control the upstream base image and include this code there, allowing downstream components to make their changes. But docker there's one inherent issue that will cause problems with this, containers should only run a single command that needs to run in the foreground. So if the upstream image kicks off, it would stay running without giving your later steps a chance to run, so you're left with complexities to determine the order to run commands to ensure that a single command does eventually run without exiting.
My personal preference is a much simpler and hardcoded option, to add my own command or entrypoint, and make the last step of my command to exec the upstream command. You will still need to manually identify the script name to call from the upstream Dockerfile. But now in your start.sh, you would have:
#!/bin/sh
# run various pieces of initialization code here
# ...
# kick off the upstream command:
exec /upstream-entrypoint.sh "$#"
By using an exec call, you transfer pid 1 to the upstream entrypoint so that signals get handled correctly. And the trailing "$#" passes through any command line arguments. You can use set to adjust the value of $# if there are some args you want to process and extract in your own start.sh script.
If the base image is not yours, you unfortunately have to call the parent command manually.
If you own the parent image, you can try what the people at camptocamp suggest here.
They basically use a generic script as an entry point that calls run-parts on a directory. What that does is run all scripts in that directory in lexicographic order. So when you extend an image, you just have to put your new scripts in that same folder.
However, that means you'll have to maintain order by prefixing your scripts which could potentially get out of hand. (Imagine the parent image decides to add a new script later...).
Anyway, that could work.
Update #1
There is a long discussion on this docker compose issue about provisioning after container run. One suggestion is to wrap you docker run or compose command in a shell script and then run docker exec on your other commands.
If you'd like to use that approach, you basically keep the parent CMD as the run command and you place yours as a docker exec after your docker run.
Using mysql image as an example
Do docker inspect mysql/mysql-server:5.7 and see that:
Config.Cmd="mysqld"
Config.Entrypoint="/entrypoint.sh"
which we put in bootstrap.sh (remember to chmod a+x):
#!/bin/bash
echo $HOSTNAME
echo "Start my initialization script..."
# docker inspect results used here
/entrypoint.sh mysqld
Dockerfile is now:
FROM mysql/mysql-server:5.7
# put our script inside the image
ADD bootstrap.sh /etc/bootstrap.sh
# set to run our script
ENTRYPOINT ["/bin/sh","-c"]
CMD ["/etc/bootstrap.sh"]
Build and run our new image:
docker build --rm -t sidazhou/tmp-mysql:5.7 .
docker run -it --rm sidazhou/tmp-mysql:5.7
Outputs:
6f5be7c6d587
Start my initialization script...
[Entrypoint] MySQL Docker Image 5.7.28-1.1.13
[Entrypoint] No password option specified for new database.
...
...
You'll see this has the same output as the original image:
docker run -it --rm mysql/mysql-server:5.7
[Entrypoint] MySQL Docker Image 5.7.28-1.1.13
[Entrypoint] No password option specified for new database.
...
...
I am trying to create a shell script for setting up a docker container. My script file looks like:
#!bin/bash
docker run -t -i -p 5902:5902 --name "mycontainer" --privileged myImage:new /bin/bash
Running this script file will run the container in a newly invoked bash.
Now I need to run a script file (test.sh)which is already inside container from the above given shell script.(eg: cd /path/to/test.sh && ./test.sh)
How to do that?
You can run a command in a running container using docker exec [OPTIONS] CONTAINER COMMAND [ARG...]:
docker exec mycontainer /path/to/test.sh
And to run from a bash session:
docker exec -it mycontainer /bin/bash
From there you can run your script.
Assuming that your docker container is up and running, you can run commands as:
docker exec mycontainer /bin/sh -c "cmd1;cmd2;...;cmdn"
I was searching an answer for this same question and found ENTRYPOINT in Dockerfile solution for me.
Dockerfile
...
ENTRYPOINT /my-script.sh ; /my-script2.sh ; /bin/bash
Now the scripts are executed when I start the container and I get the bash prompt after the scripts has been executed.
In case you don't want (or have) a running container, you can call your script directly with the run command.
Remove the iterative tty -i -t arguments and use this:
$ docker run ubuntu:bionic /bin/bash /path/to/script.sh
This will (didn't test) also work for other scripts:
$ docker run ubuntu:bionic /usr/bin/python /path/to/script.py
This command worked for me
cat local_file.sh | docker exec -i container_name bash
You could also mount a local directory into your docker image and source the script in your .bashrc. Don't forget the script has to consist of functions unless you want it to execute on every new shell. (This is outdated see the update notice.)
I'm using this solution to be able to update the script outside of the docker instance. This way I don't have to rerun the image if changes occur, I just open a new shell. (Got rid of reopening a shell - see the update notice)
Here is how you bind your current directory:
docker run -it -v $PWD:/scripts $my_docker_build /bin/bash
Now your current directory is bound to /scripts of your docker instance.
(Outdated)
To save your .bashrc changes commit your working image with this command:
docker commit $container_id $my_docker_build
Update
To solve the issue to open up a new shell for every change I now do the following:
In the dockerfile itself I add RUN echo "/scripts/bashrc" > /root/.bashrc". Inside zshrc I export the scripts directory to the path. The scripts directory now contains multiple files instead of one. Now I can directly call all scripts without having open a sub shell on every change.
BTW you can define the history file outside of your container too. This way it's not necessary to commit on a bash change anymore.
Thomio's answer is helpful but it expects the script to exist inside the image. If you have a one-of script that you want to run/test inside a container (from command-line or to be useful in a script), then you can use
$ docker run ubuntu:bionic /bin/bash -c '
echo "Hello there"
echo "this could be a long script"
'
Have a look at entry points too. You will be able to use multiple CMD
https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/builder/#/entrypoint
If you want to run the same command on multiple instances you can do this :
for i in c1 dm1 dm2 ds1 ds2 gtm_m gtm_sl; do docker exec -it $i /bin/bash -c "service sshd start"; done
This is old, and I don't have enough reputation points to comment. Still, I guess it is worth sharing how one can generalize Marvin's idea to allow parameters.
docker exec -i mycontainer bash -s arg1 arg2 arg3 < mylocal.sh