Skip to content
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

aws_security_group_rule InvalidPermission.Duplicate - Should be additive #1874

Closed
chrisferry opened this issue May 8, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Comments

@chrisferry
Copy link

I have a module which creates an ASG tied to an ELB
Within that module there is:

resource "aws_security_group_rule" "allow_elb_http_in" {
  type                     = "ingress"
  from_port                = "${var.elb_listen_port}"
  to_port                  = "${var.elb_listen_port}"
  protocol                 = "tcp"
  security_group_id        = "${var.security_group}"
  source_security_group_id = "${var.elb_security_group}"
}

I have several ASGs in the same APP-SG and several ELBs in the same ELB-SG
Some have overlapping listen ports which causes the following error when I try to apply:

* Error authorizing security group rules rules: InvalidPermission.Duplicate: the specified rule "peer: sg-xxxxxxxx, TCP, from port: 80, to port: 80, ALLOW" already exists

I think that the resource should allow for additive rules due to how the modules work

@phinze
Copy link
Contributor

phinze commented May 8, 2015

Thanks @chrisferry - this comes out of a chat we had in IRC.

Tagging this thinking since I'd like to see if there's any way for terraform to support this use case, which to me seems pretty common ( multiple disparate modules each wanting to slap rules onto a security group, some of which could overlap ).

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 18, 2020

This issue has been automatically migrated to hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#12450 because it looks like an issue with that provider. If you believe this is not an issue with the provider, please reply to hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws#12450.

@ghost ghost closed this as completed Mar 18, 2020
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 18, 2020

I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues.

If you have found a problem that seems similar to this, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.

@ghost ghost locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 18, 2020
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants