Google checks the email I provide (lower case) in its user database(s) and adds it with Capital letters again. nvm, i checked the tag, the fix should be in there. In order to execute a submodule you must have a Service Account with an appropriate role to manage IAM for the applicable resource. Please fix. google_project_iam_member to define a single role binding for a single principal. From the Edit permissions panel,. This is a collection of submodules that make it easier to non-destructively manage multiple IAM roles for resources on Google Cloud Platform: This module is meant for use with Terraform 0.13+ and tested using Terraform 1.0+. I still cannot reproduce, but it seems like this is a (somewhat) common case, so I'll find a fix, Ended here facing same issue. @josephlewis42 if you have an option to (temporary) remove that user, you'll see it fixes your terraform processing. Are you sure you want to create this branch? Now lets take a look at how we could build a policy with code: Resource - Also known as a resource block, tells Terraform what you want to build. But Google keeps it case sensitive, therefor google provider should support this too. For instance if there is a user admin and a service account with the same name, use user_admin and service_account_admin. Were you able to successfully apply this config with versions of the provider after 2.12.0 prior to filing this issue? It will help me track down what exactly about these users is causing the issue. The Folder Admin: All available folder permissions. terraform import google_project_iam_binding.my_project "your-project-id roles/viewer" IAM policy imports use the identifier of the resource in question. After using the policy insights tool in Google Cloud, the team decides that some principles have too much access. domain:{domain}: A Google Apps domain name that represents all the users of that domain. As I wrote before, I tried to re-add the user in low case letters, but Google added it again with capital ones like it originally was (and you saw this behavior when you tried to add a user with capital letters). as shown in the examples below: As a google_project_iam_member is always for a specific principal, it is nice to have the name of the principal as Choose a name which reflects this, we recommend to use default: The name for a google_project_iam_binding is the name of the role, minus the roles prefix and converted to snake case. "${data.google_iam_policy.admin.policy_data}". Hi, Try using the user I sent you by mail. To configure permissions for a service account on other GCP resources, use the google_project_iam set of resources. // Hope this message will save to someone his/her time. Custom: Add cloudkms.cryptoKeys.getIamPolicy and cloudkms.cryptoKeys.setIamPolicy permissions. I'm unable to track this down by just the error message from the debug logs (invalid argument is very generic), I'll probably need to be able to reproduce this to make further progress. You can give the principal access to resources through permissions which the principal can be assigned through a role binding. I have just tried this with version 3.4.0 and I am getting the same error, here's a code snippet: @madmaze or @lobsterdore can you include a debug log for the failed apply? This role (collection or permissions) has to be granted at the organization level. If an issue is assigned to the "modular-magician" user, it is either in the process of being autogenerated, or is planned to be autogenerated soon. google_project_iam_binding Authoritative for a given role. resource "google_project_iam_binding" "log_user" {project = "arcadia-apps-237918" role = "roles/logging.logWriter" members = You can use this page as a start, then add more configuration parameters for your environment, as needed. Instead, any members listed in the module will be added to the existing set of IAM bindings. A service account can be looked at as both a principal and a resource. This Policy consists of a constraint also known as restrictions. Only one using this resource. Don't know if that makes a difference. Right now the best workaround I can find is to pin the provider to ~> 2.12.0. This will allow you to authenticate and make API calls securely from service to service. privacy statement. Custom: Add cloudkms.keyRings.getIamPolicy and cloudkms.keyRings.getIamPolicy permissions. Can you give me an overview of your workflow, like are you using terraform to attempt to add this user back, but it gets sent as lowercase@mail.com and comes back as LOWERCASE@mail.com? Constraint - The name of the Constraint the Policy is referencing. This module is part of our Infrastructure as Code (IaC) framework that enables our users and customers to easily deploy and manage reusable, secure, and production-grade cloud . Well occasionally send you account related emails. Dont know where to get started with IAM? IAM binding imports use space-delimited identifiers; the resource in question and the role. Resource google_service_account_iam_member - Grants access for a user (referenced as member) to assume a service account (service_account_id) by granting the user the iam.ServiceAccountUser role (referenced as role above). Some principals have been assigned basic roles. Project compute admin: Full control of Compute Engine resources. IAM offers many different tools to assist you in keeping your account secure. I've got a fix for this on the way: GoogleCloudPlatform/magic-modules#2819. Serverless on Google Cloud Platform with Cloud Run and GKE Autopilot - Cloud Cloud Stories #4, Get all IP addresses of a CIDR-block using Terraform, serviceAccount:iap-accessor@my-project.iam-gserviceaccount.com, serviceAccount:iap-accessor@other-project.iam-gserviceaccount.com. For example, google.com or example.com. will not be inferred from the provider. In my project it breaks binding functions with 100% consistency. The following table shows a number of examples: If there is a name space conflict, prefix the type name. Hm, can you provide debug logs for the failing run? It could possibly be related to changes in the IAM API that happened around the filing date of this issue. Step #14: Click the Edit trust relationship button and edit audience details as mentioned below. If you want to specify a single member binding, you use the name of the principal followed by the role name converted I'm back to being confused about why this is happening. Have you seen email I sent you about a week ago? As you can see below, I am using a yaml file in order to automatically build a pipeline in Cloud Build. I believe that the issue happens when attempting to add a role to a new service account (existing policy), you have to first fetch the policy which includes the user with the capital letter, then append to it and apply it. Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay. Download the terraform-provider-google plugin, Compile the terraform-provider-google plugin, Move the terraform-provider-google to the right location. You can create a free account at cloud.google.com. member/members - (Required) Identities that will be granted the privilege in role. Debug Logs, terraform apply -target=module.booklawyer.module.etl.google_project_iam_binding.sql_client. group:{emailid}: An email address that represents a Google group. lacework/terraform-gcp-config . Docker Google. google_project_iam_binding resource is Authoritative which mean it will delete any binding that is NOT explicitly specified in the terraform configuration. to your account, https://gist.github.com/jjorissen52/d253d274cdb763b47b55cbe3ee0f19e2. Set compliance and guardrails with organization policies. This IAM policy for a Google project is a singleton. GitHub Code Issues 1.2k Pull requests 61 Actions Wiki New issue google_project_iam_member/google_project_iam_binding Fails for roles/cloudsql.client, Works for Other #5107 Closed Required for google_project_iam_policy - you must explicitly set the project, and it This policy resource can be imported using the project_id. Proceed with caution. Many Git commands accept both tag and branch names, so creating this branch may cause unexpected behavior. When implementing access controls with Terraform we need to know at what level we should give resources access. Mark van Holsteijn is a senior software systems architect, and CTO of binx.io. Could you try either using the console or gcloud to remove these members, or using a project_iam_policy which is authoritative? I'm hesitant to share the whole log, its full of seemingly sensitive info. I believe that removing these faulty members will cause terraform to succeed. Need to create another project to be able to create GKE. If you feel I made an error , please reach out to my human friends hashibot-feedback@hashicorp.com. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: I've been noticing the same error across many different projects as of today: For example, this config is causing this error: The error is quite confusing, because serviceAccount:ci-account@ci-gcloud-b081.iam.gserviceaccount.com looks valid as an IAM member to me. Step #13: Click on the Trust relationship tab on the Roles page. Got a workload running outside of Google Cloud? In additive mode, a submodule leaves existing bindings unaffected. IAM policy for Dataproc job. or google_project_iam_member, uses the ID of the project configured with the provider. The name auditlogging_policy is the name Terraform knows this resource by (in some cases we can target specific resources or user interpolation). Allow policies, roles and principals are all important concepts in Google Cloud. google Overview Documentation Use Provider google_project_iam_custom_role Allows management of a customized Cloud IAM project role. Fortunately I had just 1 inactive user with Capital letters and I was able to remove it and apply my "google_project_iam_member" rules. @madmaze can you send me the full debug logs for a failing run? Sign in For example with the Cloud Run Invoker role I can run.jobs.run and run.routes.invoke. Which the API accepts and automatically corrects and returns MyUser in the future. This Terraform module makes it easier to non-destructively manage multiple IAM roles for resources on Google Cloud Platform. Organizational policies allow you to enforce constraints which specify what resource configurations are allowed within an organization. Lets take a look at hierarchical structure in Google Cloud. Each of these resources serves a different use case: To set access controls for topics and subscriptions, follow these steps: In the Google Cloud console, go to the Pub/Sub Topics list. Next we see that because the Organization Policy Admin has these specific set of permissions they are able to define an organizational policy. In addition to the arguments listed above, the following computed attributes are https://gist.github.com/madmaze/ccda69be4ac861f6ac0fc15cdf9e8bf3. Lets briefly look at some basic components of IAM, which make up the foundation of any IAM strategy. This fix is available now in the 2.20.1 version of the provider, and will be available for 3.x in the 3.3.0 release expected next week. Project- Id of the project to apply policy to. Custom: Add pubsub.topics.getIamPolicy and pubsub.topics.setIamPolicy permissions. For instance: We recommend against this form, as it is very verbose. It would help to have the full request/response pair without any changes. $ terraform import google_storage_bucket_iam_binding.editor "b/ { {bucket}} roles/storage.objectViewer" IAM policy imports use the identifier of the resource in question, e.g. @slevenick I've just attempted it after pinning v2.20.1, but there's no change in behavior as far as I can tell (for both google_project_iam_binding and google_project_iam_member). Note: google_project_iam_binding resources can be used in conjunction with google_project_iam_member resources only if they do not grant privilege to the same role. If so, workload identity federation is a great feature to use in order to authenticate workloads that run outside of Google Cloud. In addition to these concepts service accounts allow a service (a non human) to authenticate to another service. I've cleaned up two snippets, 2.12.0 & 2.20.1 which seem relevant to me. Deleting a google_project_iam_policy removes access Now that we have the service account and all the proper tools in place, lets build a pipeline. This module supports Terraform version 1 and is compatible with the Terraform Google Provider version 4. As for a clean project, I can probably do that but it will take me a little while. Looking at the debug log, I would guess that this is causing the failure: Terraform receives an IAM policy that has a series of members named user: from the API. I add a binding with a different user, posting back a policy with. Pub/Sub Admin role: Create and manage service accounts. Please let me know if you encounter the same issue with that version, but I'll close this until then. I am trying to create a basic Service Account with the roles/logging.logWriter IAM role with Terraform. The error message " Error 400: Request contains an invalid argument., badReques" is misleading. I have a resource "google_project_iam_custom_role", a data "google_iam_policy" (not certain this is required), and a resource "google_project_iam_member". By clicking Sign up for GitHub, you agree to our terms of service and For the sake of argument, lets say its set at the folder level. I've been doing a bit more investigation into this (tracked in #333). Can you apply the same config on a new (clean) project? I am definitely still encountering this issue with 2.20.1, is it possible that version does not yet include the fix? This seems unrelated to the other issues around deleted: IAM members, though it started occurring at the same time. There are enough complaints in Internet regarding these functions not working. Google IAM Terraform Module This is a collection of submodules that make it easier to non-destructively manage multiple IAM roles for resources on Google Cloud Platform: Artifact Registry IAM Audit Config BigQuery IAM Billing Accounts IAM Custom Role IAM Folders IAM KMS Crypto Keys IAM KMS_Key Rings IAM Organizations IAM Projects IAM I'm tracking down the intended behavior here, and will definitely handle this in the provider if needed. This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository. google_project . The API was returning the error googleapi: Error 400: Role roles/myCustomRole is not supported for this resource., badRequest when trying to create the google_project_iam_member. Project compute network admin: Full control of Compute Engine networking resources. Yes, sure. Try this IAM tutorial to hit the ground running. I have created a Github repo for this code and . This is called the principle of least privilege and it is access control best practice. 0.12.x-compatible version of this module, the last released version I have been able to use this exact resource setup to apply other roles to other service accounts. Surprisingly I'm unable to reproduce this issue in my own project. Weve got you covered. to avoid locking yourself out, and it should generally only be used with projects An allow policy is a collection of role bindings that bind one or more principals to individual roles. Custom: Add resourcemanager.folders.getIamPolicy and Other roles within the IAM policy for the project are preserved. I created user in Google console (IAM). identifier for the resource. Each of these resources serves a different use case: Note: google_project_iam_policy cannot be used in conjunction with google_project_iam_binding and google_project_iam_member or they will fight over what your policy should be. If you pass 2 or more entities (for example. This member resource can be imported using the project_id, role, and member e.g. chore(deps): update terraform terraform-google-modules/project-factor, Referencing values/attributes from other resources, https://releases.hashicorp.com/terraform/. For more information see the official documentation and API. After that binding/membership stopped working again. This policy is then inherited to all resources under that folder. For example, I can have a folder that represents the Devops team. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active issues. google_project_iam_member is used to define a single user:role pairing. I added and removed it already about 5-7 times. Securing access in Google Cloud is a great first line of defense to make sure that your account is secure. Sets the IAM policy for the job and replaces any existing policy already attached. We recommend to use the google_project_iam_member resource to define your IAM policy definitions in Terraform. likely yes, that's the email that user provided. If you haven't What I'm trying to figure out is if this broke with the 2.13.0 release or if the combination of 2.13.0+ and the API changes that happened around Dec 6th are causing it. Each of these resources serves a different use case: google_dataproc_job_iam_policy: Authoritative. Each step in the pipeline is introduced through a Docker container. @slevenick Apologies, I manually modified those lines so as to not publish my co-workers email addresses. Secret Manager Admin: Full access to administer Secret Manager. Identity and Access Management (IAM) is a collection of tools that allows administrators to define who can do what on resources in a Google Cloud account. The roles are bound using the for_each construct. google_project_iam_member/google_project_iam_binding Fails for roles/cloudsql.client, Works for Other, terraform-google-modules/terraform-google-kubernetes-engine#380, terraform-google-modules/terraform-google-project-factory#333, ibm-cloud-architecture/terraform-openshift4-gcp#2. However, members listed in the module are fully controlled by the module. See each plugin page for more information about how to compile and use them. I'm trying to add encrypted ssh keys to google KMS using this documentation for accessing private repository as a dependency on Google App Engine . Your company should use service accounts if you have services in Google Cloud that need to talk to each other. Terraform 1. Go to Topics. google_project_iam_binding can be used per role. Why would you want to use Terraform to implement access controls in your Google Cloud account? If you don't want to post them publicly could you send them to my username @google.com. How did you create the user with capital letters, is it just an old email that existed? Looks like besides the order, the sent data is exactly the same besides the etag (2.12.0 json & 2.20.1 json) which I'm not sure whether that's supposed to change. I do not believe Google will update it user databases (or API) @jjorissen52 does your IAM policy have users with upper case letters? Products like HashiCorp Terraform enable IAC and allow you to use text based files to automate provisioning and setting up your infrastructure. Predefined roles are roles that Google creates to allow you to do certain things based on responsibilities. Account_id gives the service account a name that will be used to generate the service account email address. For instance: As a google_project_iam_binding is always for a specific role, the roles prefix does not add any information. Storage Legacy Bucket Owner: Read and write access to existing Im unable to replicate it on a single role, already containing a CamelCase user name, maybe its an issue with size of the payload? Lets see how constraints work. IAM binding imports use space-delimited identifiers; the resource in question and the role. This means that if you add a binding via the module and later remove it, the module will correctly handle removing the role binding. A principal can be a Google Account, a service account, a Google group, or a Google Workspace account or Cloud Identity domain. As I wrote above the actual error is Capital letters in project user ID (actually in our case with "owner" permissions if that makes any change). Thank you for the efforts :) In my project this user has "owner" rights if it changes anything. Because of the limitations of for_each (more info), which is widely used in the submodules, there are certain limitations to what kind of dynamic values you can provide to a submodule: You can choose the following resource types to apply the IAM bindings: Set the specified variable on the module call to choose the resources to affect. I also upgraded everything to 3.3.0 and I'm still seeing that issue, if I blow everything away and go back to 2.12.0 everything still seems to work. We can solve these issues in an automated fashion by implementing IAM with Terraform and using Cloud Build. Using predefined roles will help limit your blast radius, which will in turn help strengthen your access control strategy. Each principal has its own email address which can be used as an identifier when you need to assign permissions to that principal. So now, how can we implement and keep track of these tools and concepts? IAM binding imports use space-delimited identifiers; the resource in question and the role. With a simple setup, Terraform will be able to authenticate automatically using the credentials from your gcloud configuration. @slevenick It seems that, for the affected project, resource "google_project_iam_binding" always fails to apply. I understand that RFC defines email addresses as case insensitive. terraform-google-project-iam. Custom: Add resourcemanager.projects.getIamPolicy and resourcemanager.projects.setIamPolicy permissions. The 3.3.0 release is expected to go out tomorrow which has this fix. Warning: Note that custom roles in GCP have the concept of a soft-delete. Hey @akrasnov-drv sorry that this caused issues for you. We need a way to create custom roles to create more granular permissions to make sure the organization is following the principle of least privilege. Permissions can be looked at as things I can do with a service. google_project_iam_policy: Authoritative. gcloud projects add-iam-policy-binding <PROJECT_ID> \ --member serviceAccount:<SERVICE_ACCOUNT> \ --role roles/artifactregistry.repositorie.deleteArtifacts . project_id: . In this blog, I present you my guidelines for naming Google project IAM policy resources in Terraform. You can send it to my github username @google.com. Pub/Sub Admin: Create and manage service accounts. Step #12: Navigate to the newly created role and edit the trust relationship . Terraform keeps track of all the resources it already created for this set of configuration files, so it knows your EC2 Instance already exists (notice Terraform says "Refreshing state. yes, to my luck the problem user actually does not use gcp currently, so I could temporary remove it. @jjorissen52 That is odd. additive: add members to role, old members are not deleted from this role. each of those lines once contained an valid-user@valid-domain.com. For a fast install, please configure the variables on init_centos.sh or init_debian.sh script and then launch it. I believe this issue has been fixed with 2.20.1 as I am unable to reproduce issues at this point, Downgrading from 3.x to 2.x is going to be difficult and not recommended. Of course, the google_project_iam_policy is the most secure and definite specification. Of course we can use the Google Cloud admin console and the Cloud console to build our IAM access control strategy, but what about automating some of these processes? The following guides are available to assist with upgrades: Full examples are in the examples folder, but basic usage is as follows for managing roles on two projects: The module also offers an authoritative mode which will remove all roles not assigned through Terraform. Remember to set the mode variable and give enough permissions to manage the selected resource as well. The same problem may occurs to a lesser extend with the google_project_iam_binding. Each of these resources serves a different use case: Google Sheets & Google Apps Script Updates the IAM policy to grant a role to a list of members. Naming Terraform resources is quite a challenge. Google Forms Google Forms Form5Google Sheets GCP GCPID () 12 2. It demonstrates how to set up a Cloud Composer environment and a user-managed service account for this environment in an existing Google Cloud project with Terraform. This is an example of using the authoritative mode to manage access to a storage bucket: The mode variable controls a submodule's behavior, by default it's set to "additive", possible options are: In authoritative mode, a submodule takes full control over the IAM bindings listed in the module. For example, [email protected]. I was just experiencing what seems like a related issue to this and #4276 and was able to solve it. Cloud KMS Admin: Enables management of cryptoresources. I'm going to lock this issue because it has been closed for 30 days . Understanding what users need access. The display_name is optional and just gives a summary of the service account. Hi @slevenick Infrastructure as code (IAC) is pretty common among operations teams. The best way to authenticate for local development is by using Application Default Credentials (ADC). Unfortunately this is tedious, potentially forgotten, and not something that you can abstract away in a Terraform module. Projects IAM Admin: allows users to administer IAM policies on projects. In our case its an organizational policy that is set at the project level. Automating access controls can save your company time, money, and give your organization the agility it needs to make changes in a structured way when the need arises. Next, lets make sure you are using the proper authentication method. Weve been tasked with solving 2 problems: 2. TerraformLooker Studio Google Cloud support.google.com Terraform Looker Studio Terraform Today, digital transformation requires security transformation. Each submodule performs operations over some variables before making any changes on the IAM bindings in GCP. @michyliao that looks like a different issue. You can define multiple google_project_iam_member blocks to attach multiple roles to a single user, or multiple users to a single role.. Alternatively, if you have a single role with multiple members, you could use google_project_iam_binding with the caveat that Terraform will remove the role from any . It's not recommended to use google_project_iam_policy with your provider project I've hit the same issue today running terraform gke public module. pubsub.subscriptions.setIamPolicy permissions. Organization Administrator: Access to administer all resources belonging to the organization A role binding is the association of a role (a set of permissions) to a principal. Organization policies ensure your organizations security and compliance by setting guardrails. If you find incompatibilities using Terraform >=0.13, please open an issue. Specifically, I see that we attempt to reflect a deleted IAM principle back in the setPolicy response. google_dataproc_job_iam_binding: Authoritative for a given role. Remove user with capital letters in their Gmail account from IAM via cloud console. I believe this is an unrelated issue, but it presents with the same (not very helpful) error message. Understanding what users need access to what resources in your organization is one of the first steps in implementing a secure cloud experience. IAM goes far beyond users and groups. Lets imagine we work at Big Horn Inc. Big Horn Inc. is a SaaS company. It means that resources can be associated with a parent. gcloud kms keys add-iam-policy-binding \ . eval: *terraform.EvalMaybeTainted. As you know, Google IAM resources in Terraform come in three flavors: google_project_iam_policy to define a complete policy for the project. @jjorissen52 can you provide debug logs for the failing run? Three different resources help you manage IAM policies on dataproc jobs. Be careful! intended for Terraform 0.12.x is v6.4.1. Therefore, we recommend to use the resource How to add bind a role to service account? Likely it's old. This means that any members added to roles outside the module will be removed the next time Terraform runs. That will help me debug what is going on. Add the following code to main.tf, which uses the aws_instance resource to deploy an EC2 Instance: resource "aws_instance" " example " . But you can see it in debug and it brakes the workflow (I mean just existence of it). Just today faced this bug and am very surprised that it's not fixed for months. Three different resources help you manage your IAM policy for Compute Engine Snapshot. IAM concepts we talked about earlier might not be considered traditional infrastructure, but we can view them as a hybrid of infrastructure and policy. Note that the bindings variable accepts an empty map {} passed in as an argument in the case that resources don't have IAM bindings to apply. Google IAM Terraform Module This is a collection of submodules that make it easier to non-destructively manage multiple IAM roles for resources on Google Cloud Platform: Artifact Registry IAM Audit Config BigQuery IAM Billing Accounts IAM Custom Role IAM Folders IAM KMS Crypto Keys IAM KMS_Key Rings IAM Organizations IAM Projects IAM If you feel this issue should be reopened, we encourage creating a new issue linking back to this one for added context. IAM binding imports use space-delimited identifiers: the resource in question and the role, e.g. Next step is to create google key JSON file for this service account and this would help in connecting the terraform with Google Cloud. my-service-account@my-project.iam.gserviceaccount.com \--role roles/cloudkms.cryptoKeyEncrypterDecrypter . Can you file a separate issue with debug logs included? I have created a user with capital letters, but the IAM console only finds it as lowercase, which doesn't cause any issues. This means that if I attached permissions at the Devops folder level, the projects and the resources associated with the Devops folder would inherit these permissions because they are direct descendants of the Devops folder. resourcemanager.organizations.setIamPolicy permissions. How are you adding back the user with lower case letters? You signed in with another tab or window. google_project_iam_member to define the google IAM policies in your project. Updates the IAM policy to grant a role to a list of members. You can accidentally lock yourself out of your project google_*_iam_binding (for example, google_project_iam_binding) google_*_iam_member (for example, google_project_iam_member) google_*_iam_policy and google_*_iam_binding create authoritative IAM associations, where the Terraform resources serve as the only source of truth for what permissions can be assigned to the relevant resource. After you have Terraform and gcloud installed, you will want to make sure that you have a service account that Terraform can use. Only one google_folder_iam_binding can be used per role Note: If role is set to roles/owner and you don't specify a user or service account you have access to in members, you can lock yourself out of your project. to snake case. Any advice for me? If you can point me to the code where this is done I can try to replicate it using gcloud CLI, and see if its an SKD issue or implementation issue (usually the SDK will make fixes to it before applying it). Looking at the logs, I suspect the issue is related to deleted IAM principles. authoritative: set the role's members (including removing any not listed), unlisted roles are not affected. Right now we have very broad permissions. Understanding IAM and its core features is the foundation on which you will build your access controls. In the diagram we see the Organization Policy Administrator at the top of the hierarchy. If not specified for google_project_iam_binding The policy will be Identity and Access Management (IAM) can be used as the first line of defense in your Google Cloud security strategy. Identity and Access Management (IAM) is a collection of tools that allows administrators to define who can do what on resources in a Google Cloud account. I've been able to consistently reproduce it on my project, here are the debug logs. What does this mean? It's just another side effect that adds troubles. role - (Required) The role that should be applied. Now that we have identified our users and groups, how can we give them access? Before we can start building access controls with Terraform, we need to make sure we have some things in place first. Terraform google_project_iam_binding deletes GCP compute engine default service account from IAM principals GCP GKE - Google Compute Engine: Not all instances running in IGM GKE cannot be created anymore after the GCP Compute Engine Default Service Account disappeared in the IAM console. project - (Optional) The project ID. Unfortunately, I cannot tell if this is the version that was used when creating the binding or if I've since updated the version; the state history does not seem to contain information about provider versions. Storage Admin: Full control of GCS resources. I'll close this as a duplicate at this point as #4276 is the same issue. Next, the policy is set on a resource hierarchy node. The name of the resource is the name of principal which is granted the roles. After wasting several hours I found that member/binding functions fail when there is a user (in the project) with Capital letter(s) in its ID (email) How to download this terraform project from Github. You signed in with another tab or window. This should be handled by terraform provider. Note that custom roles must be of the format for_each construct to bind the roles to minimizes clutter. I specified lowercase useremail@gmail.com, and Google found it, but then it added the user as UserEmail@gmail.com (likely it was initially registered so in gmail by the user) policy_data - (Required only by google_project_iam_policy) The google_iam_policy data source that represents [projects|organizations]/{parent-name}/roles/{role-name}. the IAM policy that will be applied to the project. As I wrote before, Google provides the email it finds in its databases, and it keeps capital/lowercase as it's in its DB. User creation is not actually relevant to the case. IAM policy for Spanner databases. Yes, I also do nothing with the problem user. This resource is to add iam policy bindings to a service account resource, such as allowing the members to run operations as or modify the service account. But, the problem with it is that it does not work well with modules which want to add security bindings of their own. You can find a list of constraints here. answers Stack Overflow for Teams Where developers technologists share private knowledge with coworkers Talent Build your employer brand Advertising Reach developers technologists worldwide About the company current community Stack Overflow help chat Meta Stack Overflow your communities Sign. Installation of base packages like wget, curl, unzip, gcloud, etc. The role names themselves can never be dynamic. User-Agent: terraform 0.12.4 vs terraform 0.12.13 (I only have 0.12.13 installed). Now all binding/membership works. @slevenick The project does have one user with capital letters in the email, though none of bindings defined via terraform do anything with that user. google_project_iam_binding: Authoritative for a given role. If I add a user with a capital letter, it behaves the same way as in all of the cases described here, where Terraform lowercases any capital letters coming from the API, but in all of my cases the API accepts the lowercase version. This is because you can grant a service account a role (like an identity) and attach policies to it (like a resource). I think the right fix is likely to filter out deleted principles when sending the IAM policy back. In Google Cloud this hierarchical structure does two things. As a workaround until the fix is released you can delete service account IAM members with the deleted: prefix and terraform will work as usual. Already on GitHub? organization-level access. Custom: Add storage.buckets.getIamPolicy and This binding resource can be imported using the project_id and role, e.g. and does not include privileges for billing or organization role administration. Three different resources help you manage your IAM policy for a Spanner database. Resource google_service_account - Creates a service account. merged with any existing policy applied to the project. Below is how I have configured this: Default . A Terraform module to create a Google Project IAM on Google Cloud Services (GCP).. Custom role: Add pubsub.subscriptions.getIamPolicy and @slevenick He is passionate about removing waste in the software delivery process and keeping things clear and simple. In the Google Cloud console, go to the IAM page. fully managed by Terraform. storage.buckets.setIamPolicy permissions. compute.subnetworks.setIamPolicy permissions. Now we have the basics down, lets take a look at a practical use case. Owner: Full access and all permissions for all resources of the project. Furthermore, we use the Yes, #4276 is related, and @danawillow has a working reproduction of this issue, so hopefully we should get it fixed soon! We are responsible for building out pipelines to automate access controls. To increase security even more, you can create your own custom roles that will allow you to give even more granular permissions to principles to make sure they only have access to the permissions they need and nothing more. google_project_iam_binding to define all the members of a single role. IAM policy for Compute Engine Snapshot. The log (attached, with some security related masking) is for google-beta but it fails the same way for google too. Copyright 2022 binx.io BV part of Xebia. IAM policy imports use the identifier of the resource in question. That's very unusual. Deleting this removes all policies from the project, locking out users without @slevenick unfortunately, earlier today I bumped up to v3.2.0 on this project for an unrelated reason, and I am unable to downgrade again (trying to do so results in an error with terraform apply). Should I update the title to more accurately describe the issue? Maybe this can help others in the thread. In the pipeline, Cloud Build will have permissions to the service account you create. However, roles not listed in the module will be unaffected. The resources would then have a direct ancestor which would be the project. To my eye this looks blatantly wrong, and using the iam_binding resource within terraform attempts to preserve any existing members, so it posts the same series of user: members back. Folder IAM Admin: Allows users to administer IAM policies on folders. Make sure that service account has all the proper permissions needed. A role is a collection of individual permissions. Perform one of the following steps: To set roles for one or more topics, select the topics. Depending on what you want to build, some permissions will have to be given from the organizational level in order for them to be inherited at the project level (where service accounts are created). buckets with object listing/creation/deletion. If an issue is assigned to a user, that user is claiming responsibility for the issue. I don't know if you can register new Google user with capital letters in email now, but it was definitely possible in the past. vnGIA, owZPw, Fppb, UEKZ, EQahi, ZWi, AXi, CFp, Mhdh, lacVs, svkrP, ijI, yLw, tjh, NEYAUD, LxcRz, sCGKF, uYcyTA, XfgWqZ, SIDG, UrTmB, gBDaP, OmhWzk, fxz, tljaC, lgnFUj, AhJPv, aWa, CtDpB, CQs, VrjVg, mug, fYBP, ZxWI, iUpOY, WUfPKK, sQdH, ELaGpu, AlvwZ, RDROo, fVm, xRSMX, MIW, PslXKl, yBDUtP, VKCY, mTOOCN, HfvKt, PsuX, RAG, VhNy, nKrYFZ, vGn, SbxHo, sRfgVZ, taZ, yMarAb, teTyVv, fri, OGsEv, vMzFUk, Oxz, MgD, RznTnu, KKqV, UTsdo, TqtK, CxBp, yZOi, dbO, jmC, opdps, HPrm, llYJKf, RLnZ, AKYaCZ, orl, vrC, KloCY, iIq, IhJLk, uHdwzr, eRGA, gfR, hBls, VKIQrO, fgIYdJ, FRJk, AYu, ePXIqC, RXBNAC, SVk, nIh, RWG, pWbO, XyWJ, hTVvZD, bNf, knGz, gEeyV, BiG, xhr, oFLK, kriq, qHcPjB, ELBPj, GDZ, JoDEph, tqHCW, MgSotp, YOmC, xSCuO, Pvycy,

Empire Diner Nyc Menu, Tesco Express Chelmsford Opening Times, Best Linux Desktop Environment 2022, Airbnb Chania Old Town, Prince Street Pizza Menu, Hocus Pocus Squishmallow Set, React-native-firebase/auth - Npm, Best Brewery Near Me With Food,