User story #2428: Create a Technique that allows for arbitrary command execution, and optionnaly execute a command based on the output - Rudder - Issue Tracker

Actions

Copy link

User story #2428

closed

Create a Technique that allows for arbitrary command execution, and optionnaly execute a command based on the output

Added by Nicolas CHARLES about 12 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Status:

Rejected

Priority:

Assignee:

Jonathan CLARKE

Category:

Techniques

Target version:

3.1.17

Pull Request:

UX impact:

Suggestion strength:

User visibility:

Effort required:

Name check:

Fix check:

Regression:

Description

It wuold be useful to have a Policy Template that would allow for command execution, with all the warning about the fact that executing commands are risky

And if we could use the output of the command to execute other commands, it would be even better

The use case : check if a database exists, and if not create it (with CFEngine 3.3 it will be easier)

execute a command that check the existance of the database

su - postgres -c "psql -t -c \"select count(1) from pg_catalog.pg_database where datname = 'foo'\""

If the output is 0, then it has to be created :

su - postgres -c "psql -t -c \"CREATE TABLE foo ....\""

(with the mandatory caution about the " and '

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE almost 12 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.7 to 2.3.8

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE almost 12 years ago

Project changed from Rudder to 24
Category deleted (~~Techniques~~)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON almost 12 years ago

Category set to Policy Templates

It concerns Policy Templates

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE almost 12 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.8 to 2.3.9

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE over 11 years ago

Assignee deleted (~~Matthieu CERDA~~)

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 11 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.9 to 2.3.10

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Matthieu CERDA about 11 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.10 to 2.3.11

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Matthieu CERDA about 11 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.11 to 2.3.12

Actions

Copy link

Updated by Dennis Cabooter about 11 years ago

I need this as well. To use winbind I need to join the domain once. Can anybody tell me what is the status of this proposal? Thanks in advance!

Actions

Copy link

#10

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE about 11 years ago

Dennis Cabooter wrote:

I need this as well. To use winbind I need to join the domain once. Can anybody tell me what is the status of this proposal? Thanks in advance!

This has not been done yet, however we have been working on #3215, which has some similar functionality, and will be re-usable for this.

Let's see if we can get these both moving.

Actions

Copy link

#11

Updated by Matthieu CERDA almost 11 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.12 to 2.3.13

Actions

Copy link

#12

Updated by Nicolas CHARLES almost 11 years ago

Explained use case for this ticket

11:03:21 < dnns> for example, if i install winbind
11:04:01 < dnns> i need to join the domain *after* configuring winbind
11:05:31 < dnns> so for example i would like to execute "getent passwd AD_USER" and if that returns zero
11:05:41 < dnns> i don't need to do anything
11:05:54 < dnns> if it returns > 0 then I need to join the domain

Actions

Copy link

#13

Updated by Nicolas PERRON almost 11 years ago

Target version changed from 2.3.13 to 84

Actions

Copy link

#14

Updated by Nicolas PERRON almost 11 years ago

Target version changed from 84 to 2.4.7

Actions

Copy link

#15

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.7 to 2.4.8

Actions

Copy link

#16

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.8 to 2.4.9

Actions

Copy link

#17

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.9 to 2.4.10

Actions

Copy link

#18

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.10 to 2.4.11

Actions

Copy link

#19

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.11 to 2.4.12

Actions

Copy link

#20

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.12 to 2.4.13

Actions

Copy link

#21

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.4.13 to 2.6.11

Since version 2.4 is not maintained anymore, retageting this issue to 2.6

Actions

Copy link

#22

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12

Actions

Copy link

#23

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ about 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.12 to 2.6.13

Actions

Copy link

#24

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ almost 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.13 to 2.6.14

Actions

Copy link

#25

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE almost 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.14 to 2.6.16

Actions

Copy link

#26

Updated by Jonathan CLARKE almost 10 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.16 to 2.6.17

Actions

Copy link

#27

Updated by Nicolas PERRON over 9 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.17 to 2.6.18

Actions

Copy link

#28

Updated by Matthieu CERDA over 9 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.18 to 2.6.19

Actions

Copy link

#29

Updated by Vincent MEMBRÉ over 9 years ago

Target version changed from 2.6.19 to 2.6.20

Actions

Copy link

#30

Updated by François ARMAND about 9 years ago

Project changed from 24 to Rudder
Subject changed from Create a Policy Template that allows for arbitrary command execution, and optionnaly execute a command based on the output to Create a Technique that allows for arbitrary command execution, and optionnaly execute a command based on the output
Category changed from Policy Templates to Techniques
Assignee set to Jonathan CLARKE
Priority changed from 2 to 3
Target version changed from 2.6.20 to 3.1.0~beta1

Seems quite easy, but I wonder if we still need it since we have "command execution" in ncf/ncf-builder since 2.11. I will say "yes", because it's a really basic thing, and it is strange that it's not present.

Jon, what do you thing about that ? Still needed in our std technique, or dispensable ?

All in all, it won't be done before 3.1.

Actions

Copy link

#31