How to control host from docker container?
For example, how to execute copied to host bash script?
This answer is just a more detailed version of Bradford Medeiros's solution, which for me as well turned out to be the best answer, so credit goes to him.
In his answer, he explains WHAT to do (named pipes) but not exactly HOW to do it.
I have to admit I didn't know what named pipes were when I read his solution. So I struggled to implement it (while it's actually very simple), but I did succeed.
So the point of my answer is just detailing the commands you need to run in order to get it working, but again, credit goes to him.
PART 1 - Testing the named pipe concept without docker
On the main host, chose the folder where you want to put your named pipe file, for instance /path/to/pipe/ and a pipe name, for instance mypipe, and then run:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The pipe is created.
Type
ls -l /path/to/pipe/mypipe
And check the access rights start with "p", such as
prw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 mypipe
Now run:
tail -f /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The terminal is now waiting for data to be sent into this pipe
Now open another terminal window.
And then run:
echo "hello world" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Check the first terminal (the one with tail -f), it should display "hello world"
PART 2 - Run commands through the pipe
On the host container, instead of running tail -f which just outputs whatever is sent as input, run this command that will execute it as commands:
eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"
Then, from the other terminal, try running:
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Go back to the first terminal and you should see the result of the ls -l command.
PART 3 - Make it listen forever
You may have noticed that in the previous part, right after ls -l output is displayed, it stops listening for commands.
Instead of eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)", run:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done
(you can nohup that)
Now you can send unlimited number of commands one after the other, they will all be executed, not just the first one.
PART 4 - Make it work even when reboot happens
The only caveat is if the host has to reboot, the "while" loop will stop working.
To handle reboot, here what I've done:
Put the while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done in a file called execpipe.sh with #!/bin/bash header
Don't forget to chmod +x it
Add it to crontab by running
crontab -e
And then adding
#reboot /path/to/execpipe.sh
At this point, test it: reboot your server, and when it's back up, echo some commands into the pipe and check if they are executed.
Of course, you aren't able to see the output of commands, so ls -l won't help, but touch somefile will help.
Another option is to modify the script to put the output in a file, such as:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)" &> /somepath/output.txt; done
Now you can run ls -l and the output (both stdout and stderr using &> in bash) should be in output.txt.
PART 5 - Make it work with docker
If you are using both docker compose and dockerfile like I do, here is what I've done:
Let's assume you want to mount the mypipe's parent folder as /hostpipe in your container
Add this:
VOLUME /hostpipe
in your dockerfile in order to create a mount point
Then add this:
volumes:
- /path/to/pipe:/hostpipe
in your docker compose file in order to mount /path/to/pipe as /hostpipe
Restart your docker containers.
PART 6 - Testing
Exec into your docker container:
docker exec -it <container> bash
Go into the mount folder and check you can see the pipe:
cd /hostpipe && ls -l
Now try running a command from within the container:
echo "touch this_file_was_created_on_main_host_from_a_container.txt" > /hostpipe/mypipe
And it should work!
WARNING: If you have an OSX (Mac OS) host and a Linux container, it won't work (explanation here https://stackoverflow.com/a/43474708/10018801 and issue here https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/483 ) because the pipe implementation is not the same, so what you write into the pipe from Linux can be read only by a Linux and what you write into the pipe from Mac OS can be read only by a Mac OS (this sentence might not be very accurate, but just be aware that a cross-platform issue exists).
For instance, when I run my docker setup in DEV from my Mac OS computer, the named pipe as explained above does not work. But in staging and production, I have Linux host and Linux containers, and it works perfectly.
PART 7 - Example from Node.JS container
Here is how I send a command from my Node.JS container to the main host and retrieve the output:
const pipePath = "/hostpipe/mypipe"
const outputPath = "/hostpipe/output.txt"
const commandToRun = "pwd && ls-l"
console.log("delete previous output")
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath)
console.log("writing to pipe...")
const wstream = fs.createWriteStream(pipePath)
wstream.write(commandToRun)
wstream.close()
console.log("waiting for output.txt...") //there are better ways to do that than setInterval
let timeout = 10000 //stop waiting after 10 seconds (something might be wrong)
const timeoutStart = Date.now()
const myLoop = setInterval(function () {
if (Date.now() - timeoutStart > timeout) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
console.log("timed out")
} else {
//if output.txt exists, read it
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
const data = fs.readFileSync(outputPath).toString()
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath) //delete the output file
console.log(data) //log the output of the command
}
}
}, 300);
Use a named pipe.
On the host OS, create a script to loop and read commands, and then you call eval on that.
Have the docker container read to that named pipe.
To be able to access the pipe, you need to mount it via a volume.
This is similar to the SSH mechanism (or a similar socket-based method), but restricts you properly to the host device, which is probably better. Plus you don't have to be passing around authentication information.
My only warning is to be cautious about why you are doing this. It's totally something to do if you want to create a method to self-upgrade with user input or whatever, but you probably don't want to call a command to get some config data, as the proper way would be to pass that in as args/volume into docker. Also, be cautious about the fact that you are evaling, so just give the permission model a thought.
Some of the other answers such as running a script. Under a volume won't work generically since they won't have access to the full system resources, but it might be more appropriate depending on your usage.
The solution I use is to connect to the host over SSH and execute the command like this:
ssh -l ${USERNAME} ${HOSTNAME} "${SCRIPT}"
UPDATE
As this answer keeps getting up votes, I would like to remind (and highly recommend), that the account which is being used to invoke the script should be an account with no permissions at all, but only executing that script as sudo (that can be done from sudoers file).
UPDATE: Named Pipes
The solution I suggested above was only the one I used while I was relatively new to Docker. Now in 2021 take a look on the answers that talk about Named Pipes. This seems to be a better solution.
However, nobody there mentioned anything about security. The script that will evaluate the commands sent through the pipe (the script that calls eval) must actually not use eval for the whole pipe output, but to handle specific cases and call the required commands according to the text sent, otherwise any command that can do anything can be sent through the pipe.
That REALLY depends on what you need that bash script to do!
For example, if the bash script just echoes some output, you could just do
docker run --rm -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
Another possibility is that you want the bash script to install some software- say the script to install docker-compose. you could do something like
docker run --rm -v /usr/bin:/usr/bin --privileged -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
But at this point you're really getting into having to know intimately what the script is doing to allow the specific permissions it needs on your host from inside the container.
My laziness led me to find the easiest solution that wasn't published as an answer here.
It is based on the great article by luc juggery.
All you need to do in order to gain a full shell to your linux host from within your docker container is:
docker run --privileged --pid=host -it alpine:3.8 \
nsenter -t 1 -m -u -n -i sh
Explanation:
--privileged : grants additional permissions to the container, it allows the container to gain access to the devices of the host (/dev)
--pid=host : allows the containers to use the processes tree of the Docker host (the VM in which the Docker daemon is running)
nsenter utility: allows to run a process in existing namespaces (the building blocks that provide isolation to containers)
nsenter (-t 1 -m -u -n -i sh) allows to run the process sh in the same isolation context as the process with PID 1.
The whole command will then provide an interactive sh shell in the VM
This setup has major security implications and should be used with cautions (if any).
Write a simple server python server listening on a port (say 8080), bind the port -p 8080:8080 with the container, make a HTTP request to localhost:8080 to ask the python server running shell scripts with popen, run a curl or writing code to make a HTTP request curl -d '{"foo":"bar"}' localhost:8080
#!/usr/bin/python
from BaseHTTPServer import BaseHTTPRequestHandler,HTTPServer
import subprocess
import json
PORT_NUMBER = 8080
# This class will handles any incoming request from
# the browser
class myHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_POST(self):
content_len = int(self.headers.getheader('content-length'))
post_body = self.rfile.read(content_len)
self.send_response(200)
self.end_headers()
data = json.loads(post_body)
# Use the post data
cmd = "your shell cmd"
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
p_status = p.wait()
(output, err) = p.communicate()
print "Command output : ", output
print "Command exit status/return code : ", p_status
self.wfile.write(cmd + "\n")
return
try:
# Create a web server and define the handler to manage the
# incoming request
server = HTTPServer(('', PORT_NUMBER), myHandler)
print 'Started httpserver on port ' , PORT_NUMBER
# Wait forever for incoming http requests
server.serve_forever()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print '^C received, shutting down the web server'
server.socket.close()
If you are not worried about security and you're simply looking to start a docker container on the host from within another docker container like the OP, you can share the docker server running on the host with the docker container by sharing it's listen socket.
Please see https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/security/#docker-daemon-attack-surface and see if your personal risk tolerance allows this for this particular application.
You can do this by adding the following volume args to your start command
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ...
or by sharing /var/run/docker.sock within your docker compose file like this:
version: '3'
services:
ci:
command: ...
image: ...
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
When you run the docker start command within your docker container,
the docker server running on your host will see the request and provision the sibling container.
credit: http://jpetazzo.github.io/2015/09/03/do-not-use-docker-in-docker-for-ci/
As Marcus reminds, docker is basically process isolation. Starting with docker 1.8, you can copy files both ways between the host and the container, see the doc of docker cp
https://docs.docker.com/reference/commandline/cp/
Once a file is copied, you can run it locally
docker run --detach-keys="ctrl-p" -it -v /:/mnt/rootdir --name testing busybox
# chroot /mnt/rootdir
#
I have a simple approach.
Step 1: Mount /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock (So you will be able to execute docker commands inside your container)
Step 2: Execute this below inside your container. The key part here is (--network host as this will execute from host context)
docker run -i --rm --network host -v /opt/test.sh:/test.sh alpine:3.7
sh /test.sh
test.sh should contain the some commands (ifconfig, netstat etc...) whatever you need.
Now you will be able to get host context output.
You can use the pipe concept, but use a file on the host and fswatch to accomplish the goal to execute a script on the host machine from a docker container. Like so (Use at your own risk):
#! /bin/bash
touch .command_pipe
chmod +x .command_pipe
# Use fswatch to execute a command on the host machine and log result
fswatch -o --event Updated .command_pipe | \
xargs -n1 -I "{}" .command_pipe >> .command_pipe_log &
docker run -it --rm \
--name alpine \
-w /home/test \
-v $PWD/.command_pipe:/dev/command_pipe \
alpine:3.7 sh
rm -rf .command_pipe
kill %1
In this example, inside the container send commands to /dev/command_pipe, like so:
/home/test # echo 'docker network create test2.network.com' > /dev/command_pipe
On the host, you can check if the network was created:
$ docker network ls | grep test2
8e029ec83afe test2.network.com bridge local
In my scenario I just ssh login the host (via host ip) within a container and then I can do anything I want to the host machine
I found answers using named pipes awesome. But I was wondering if there is a way to get the output of the executed command.
The solution is to create two named pipes:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_in
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_out
Then, the solution using a loop, as suggested by #Vincent, would become:
# on the host
while true; do eval "$(cat exec_in)" > exec_out; done
And then on the docker container, we can execute the command and get the output using:
# on the container
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/exec_in
cat /path/to/pipe/exec_out
If anyone interested, my need was to use a failover IP on the host from the container, I created this simple ruby method:
def fifo_exec(cmd)
exec_in = '/path/to/pipe/exec_in'
exec_out = '/path/to/pipe/exec_out'
%x[ echo #{cmd} > #{exec_in} ]
%x[ cat #{exec_out} ]
end
# example
fifo_exec "curl https://ip4.seeip.org"
Depending on the situation, this could be a helpful resource.
This uses a job queue (Celery) that can be run on the host, commands/data could be passed to this through Redis (or rabbitmq). In the example below, this is occurring in a django application (which is commonly dockerized).
https://www.codingforentrepreneurs.com/blog/celery-redis-django/
To expand on user2915097's response:
The idea of isolation is to be able to restrict what an application/process/container (whatever your angle at this is) can do to the host system very clearly. Hence, being able to copy and execute a file would really break the whole concept.
Yes. But it's sometimes necessary.
No. That's not the case, or Docker is not the right thing to use. What you should do is declare a clear interface for what you want to do (e.g. updating a host config), and write a minimal client/server to do exactly that and nothing more. Generally, however, this doesn't seem to be very desirable. In many cases, you should simply rethink your approach and eradicate that need. Docker came into an existence when basically everything was a service that was reachable using some protocol. I can't think of any proper usecase of a Docker container getting the rights to execute arbitrary stuff on the host.
I'm running the following command for an automation with interactive connection after the automation run (my full automation has other commands), for example:
ssh user#ip 'ls -la; bash'
and for some reason I don't have a complete tty like normal ssh connection (user#hostname:~$ and autocomplete)
As the ssh man page says:
-t Force pseudo-tty allocation. This can be used to execute arbi-
trary screen-based programs on a remote machine, which can be
very useful, e.g. when implementing menu services. Multiple -t
options force tty allocation, even if ssh has no local tty.
So you have to use
ssh -tt user#ip 'ls -la; bash'
I am trying to call an installation of node.js on a remote server running Ubuntu via SSH. Node has been installed via nvm.
SSHing in and calling node works just fine:
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver
(Server welcome text)
user#remoteserver:~$ which node
/home/user/.nvm/v0.10.00/bin/node
However if I combine it into one line:
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver "which ls"
/bin/ls
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver "which node"
No sign of node, so I tried sourcing .bashrc and waiting 10 seconds:
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver "source ~/.bashrc; sleep 10; which node"
Only node seems affected by this. One thing I did notice was that if I ssh in and then check which shell I'm in it says -bash whilst if I ssh direct it gives me /bin/bash. I tried running the commands inside a bash login shell:
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver 'bash --login -c "which node"'
Still nothing.
Basically my question is: Why isn't bash finding my node.js installation when I call it non-interactively from SSH?
Another approach is to run bash in interactive mode with the -i flag:
user#localmachine:~$ ssh user#remoteserver "bash -i -c 'which node'"
/home/user/.nvm/v0.10.00/bin/node
$ ssh user#remoteserver "which node"
When you run ssh and specify a command to be run on the remote system, ssh by default doesn't allocate a PTY (pseudo-TTY) for the session. Not having a TTY causes your remote shell process (ie, bash) to initialize as a non-interactive session instead of an interactive session. This can alter how it interprets your initialization files--.bashrc, .bash_profile, and so on.
The actual problem is probably that the line which adds /home/user/.nvm/v0.10.00/bin to your command PATH isn't executing for non-interactive sessions. There are two ways to resolve this:
Find the command in your initialization file(s) which adds /home/user/.nvm/v0.10.00/bin to your command path, figure out why it's not running for non-interactive sessions, and correct it.
Run ssh with the -t option. This tells it to allocate a PTY for the remote session. Or add the line RequestTTY yes to your .ssh/config file on the local host.
I have two questions:
There are multiple remote linux machines, and I need to write a shell script which will execute the same set of commands in each machine. (Including some sudo operations). How can this be done using shell scripting?
When ssh'ing to the remote machine, how to handle when it prompts for RSA fingerprint authentication.
The remote machines are VMs created on the run and I just have their IPs. So, I cant place a script file beforehand in those machines and execute them from my machine.
There are multiple remote linux machines, and I need to write a shell script which will execute the same set of commands in each machine. (Including some sudo operations). How can this be done using shell scripting?
You can do this with ssh, for example:
#!/bin/bash
USERNAME=someUser
HOSTS="host1 host2 host3"
SCRIPT="pwd; ls"
for HOSTNAME in ${HOSTS} ; do
ssh -l ${USERNAME} ${HOSTNAME} "${SCRIPT}"
done
When ssh'ing to the remote machine, how to handle when it prompts for RSA fingerprint authentication.
You can add the StrictHostKeyChecking=no option to ssh:
ssh -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -l username hostname "pwd; ls"
This will disable the host key check and automatically add the host key to the list of known hosts. If you do not want to have the host added to the known hosts file, add the option -o UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null.
Note that this disables certain security checks, for example protection against man-in-the-middle attack. It should therefore not be applied in a security sensitive environment.
Install sshpass using, apt-get install sshpass then edit the script and put your linux machines IPs, usernames and password in respective order. After that run that script. Thats it ! This script will install VLC in all systems.
#!/bin/bash
SCRIPT="cd Desktop; pwd; echo -e 'PASSWORD' | sudo -S apt-get install vlc"
HOSTS=("192.168.1.121" "192.168.1.122" "192.168.1.123")
USERNAMES=("username1" "username2" "username3")
PASSWORDS=("password1" "password2" "password3")
for i in ${!HOSTS[*]} ; do
echo ${HOSTS[i]}
SCR=${SCRIPT/PASSWORD/${PASSWORDS[i]}}
sshpass -p ${PASSWORDS[i]} ssh -l ${USERNAMES[i]} ${HOSTS[i]} "${SCR}"
done
This work for me.
Syntax : ssh -i pemfile.pem user_name#ip_address 'command_1 ; command 2; command 3'
#! /bin/bash
echo "########### connecting to server and run commands in sequence ###########"
ssh -i ~/.ssh/ec2_instance.pem ubuntu#ip_address 'touch a.txt; touch b.txt; sudo systemctl status tomcat.service'
There are a number of ways to handle this.
My favorite way is to install http://pamsshagentauth.sourceforge.net/ on the remote systems and also your own public key. (Figure out a way to get these installed on the VM, somehow you got an entire Unix system installed, what's a couple more files?)
With your ssh agent forwarded, you can now log in to every system without a password.
And even better, that pam module will authenticate for sudo with your ssh key pair so you can run with root (or any other user's) rights as needed.
You don't need to worry about the host key interaction. If the input is not a terminal then ssh will just limit your ability to forward agents and authenticate with passwords.
You should also look into packages like Capistrano. Definitely look around that site; it has an introduction to remote scripting.
Individual script lines might look something like this:
ssh remote-system-name command arguments ... # so, for exmaple,
ssh target.mycorp.net sudo puppet apply
The accepted answer sshes to machines sequentially. In case you want to ssh to multiple machines and run some long-running commands like scp concurrently on them, run the ssh command as a background process.
#!/bin/bash
username="user"
servers=("srv-001" "srv-002" "srv-002" "srv-003");
script="pwd;"
for s in "${servers[#]}"; do
echo "sshing ${username}#${s} to run ${script}"
(ssh ${username}#${s} ${script})& # Run in background
done
wait # If removed, you can run some other script here
If you are able to write Perl code, then you should consider using Net::OpenSSH::Parallel.
You would be able to describe the actions that have to be run in every host in a declarative manner and the module will take care of all the scary details. Running commands through sudo is also supported.
For this kind of tasks, I repeatedly use Ansible which allows to duplicate coherently bash scripts in several containets or VM. Ansible (more precisely Red Hat) now has an additional web interface AWX which is the open-source edition of their commercial Tower.
Ansible: https://www.ansible.com/
AWX:https://github.com/ansible/awx
Ansible Tower: commercial product, you will probably fist explore the free open-source AWX, rather than the 15days free-trail of Tower
There is are multiple ways to execute the commands or script in the multiple remote Linux machines.
One simple & easiest way is via pssh (parallel ssh program)
pssh: is a program for executing ssh in parallel on a number of hosts. It provides features such as sending input to all of the processes, passing a password to ssh, saving the output to files, and timing out.
Example & Usage:
Connect to host1 and host2, and print "hello, world" from each:
pssh -i -H "host1 host2" echo "hello, world"
Run commands via a script on multiple servers:
pssh -h hosts.txt -P -I<./commands.sh
Usage & run a command without checking or saving host keys:
pssh -h hostname_ip.txt -x '-q -o StrictHostKeyChecking=no -o PreferredAuthentications=publickey -o PubkeyAuthentication=yes' -i 'uptime; hostname -f'
If the file hosts.txt has a large number of entries, say 100, then the parallelism option may also be set to 100 to ensure that the commands are run concurrently:
pssh -i -h hosts.txt -p 100 -t 0 sleep 10000
Options:
-I: Read input and sends to each ssh process.
-P: Tells pssh to display output as it arrives.
-h: Reads the host's file.
-H : [user#]host[:port] for single-host.
-i: Display standard output and standard error as each host completes
-x args: Passes extra SSH command-line arguments
-o option: Can be used to give options in the format used in the configuration file.(/etc/ssh/ssh_config) (~/.ssh/config)
-p parallelism: Use the given number as the maximum number of concurrent connections
-q Quiet mode: Causes most warning and diagnostic messages to be suppressed.
-t: Make connections time out after the given number of seconds. 0 means pssh will not timeout any connections
When ssh'ing to the remote machine, how to handle when it prompts for
RSA fingerprint authentication.
Disable the StrictHostKeyChecking to handle the RSA authentication prompt.
-o StrictHostKeyChecking=no
Source: man pssh
This worked for me. I made a function. Put this in your shell script:
sshcmd(){
ssh $1#$2 $3
}
sshcmd USER HOST COMMAND
If you have multiple machines that you want to do the same command on you would repeat that line with a semi colon. For example, if you have two machines you would do this:
sshcmd USER HOST COMMAND ; sshcmd USER HOST COMMAND
Replace USER with the user of the computer. Replace HOST with the name of the computer. Replace COMMAND with the command you want to do on the computer.
Hope this helps!
You can follow this approach :
Connect to remote machine using Expect Script. If your machine doesn't support expect you can download the same. Writing Expect script is very easy (google to get help on this)
Put all the action which needs to be performed on remote server in a shell script.
Invoke remote shell script from expect script once login is successful.