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

[BUG][Functional] Phase 2 Failure after account suspension #1229

Open
para0056 opened this issue Jun 17, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

[BUG][Functional] Phase 2 Failure after account suspension #1229

para0056 opened this issue Jun 17, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@para0056
Copy link

Bug reports which fail to provide the required information will be closed without action.

Required Basic Info

  • Accelerator Version: 1.5.9-b
  • Install Type: N/A
  • Upgrade from version: N/A

Describe the bug
State Machine failure at Phase 2 after suspending AWS Account when account with long name exists in the same OU.

Failure Info
Error in Phase 2

Error: The stack named PBITAccel-WrkCcoeLakehouseItbstrategy1234-Phase2 failed to deploy: UPDATE_ROLLBACK_COMPLETE: Resource handler returned message: "Security Group with App_sg already exists" (RequestToken: 6c5c80d7-902c-3328-9845-b423bc22f28b, HandlerErrorCode: AlreadyExists), Resource handler returned message: "Security Group with Web_sg already exists" (RequestToken: 9f965975-9037-8da8-84a7-abda4a8802f9, HandlerErrorCode: AlreadyExists), Resource handler returned message: "Security Group with Mgmt_sg already exists" (RequestToken: e21934d1-331a-d4ed-bd23-077c1dbb2ec2, HandlerErrorCode: AlreadyExists), Resource handler returned message: "Security Group with Data_sg already exists" (RequestToken: 0b9277f0-6c1e-a431-14b2-f6d5f301679d, HandlerErrorCode: AlreadyExists), Embedded stack arn:aws:cloudformation:ca-central-1:############:stack/PBITAccel-WrkCcoeLakehouseItbstrategy1234-P-SecurityGroupsTestShared2NestedStackSecuri-DLH5XBLW9U8P/96a21e70-21bc-11ef-879b-022ef219b75f was not successfully created: The following resource(s) failed to create: [SecurityGroupsSharedAccount2DataFBF92784, SecurityGroupsSharedAccount2Web23A19CB1, SecurityGroupsSharedAccount2Mgmt3C1EBEDE, SecurityGroupsSharedAccount2App7B023DB2].

Required files
N/A

Steps To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce:

  1. Create workload account in OU that has security groups defined in the ASEA config.json
    a. Ensure that the main SM runs
  2. Create new workload account with a long account name (at least 35 chars) in same OU as account created in step Naming conventions #1
    a. E.g. workload-new-account-cra-test-1234
    b. Ensure that the main SM runs
  3. Attempt to close account created in step 1 using documented process (https://aws-samples.github.io/aws-secure-environment-accelerator/latest/faq/#11-operational-activities)
  4. Once the account is suspended via AWS Organizations, and you run the main State Machine, it will fail at phase 2
    a. The errors seem to indicate that it is trying to deploy another instance of a nested Phase 2 stack in long name account.
    Specifically, the nested stack responsible for creating the default SGs in the account (Web_sg, App_sg, Data_sg, Mgmt_sg)
    This stack fails because the SGs were already created in this account, and SG names must be unique in an account/region pair.
    To get around this error, we need to delete the SGs from account Naming conventions #1 and re-run the main SM.

Expected behavior
The State Machine should run successfully after an account is suspended.

Screenshots
N/A

Additional context
N/A

@archikierstead
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention and making AWS aware of the problem. While we acknowledge its existence, we have not been able to reproduce it in any of our testing environments to date. We want to make you aware that the Landing Zone Accelerator for AWS (LZA), which you will be upgrading to, does not employ the same mechanisms that have name length constraints, so this issue will be resolved once the upgrade to LZA is complete. In the meantime, we will update the ASEA documentation to clarify the limit on account name lengths in the configuration file. Our current focus is on providing customers a smooth upgrade experience to LZA, which is currently in the testing phase, and we look forward to providing an update once that testing has concluded.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants