Supply optional Security Groups to an EC2 instance in CloudFormation

When developing your Infrastructure as Code CloudFormation templates, you sometimes need to associate your resources with a list of Security Groups (SG) which may need to be configurable. For example, your resource may have a primary SG, and a list of optional SGs that can be specified at template deployment time.

I recently went through a somewhat painful exercise figuring out how to implement this, and that’s what I’m here to share with you.

As they say – “failure is mother of all learning”, or something on those lines (actually I just made it up), but anyway.

What I failed to achieve is make it work with optional SGs Parameter type List<AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup::Id>, that displays a nice drop-down of all your existing SGs when deploying through UI. Instead, I have to use CommaDelimitedList, which isn’t nearly as nice, but hey – at least it works.

The sticker was in the validation logic (see Gist below): when user doesn’t make any selection for Parameter with type List<AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup::Id>, CloudFormation declares this Parameter as “unknown”, so it can’t be used for things like Fn::Equals and such. That’s what I learned (and proudly twitted about with the #awswishlist tag, asking for a way to validate if such Parameter is empty) 🙂

So, enough talking, off to show the goods.

Notes:

1. Yes, the logic spider nest in SecurityGroup attribute of InstanceLaunchConfig looks, um, unattractive; but it works.
2. You may probably want to make sure the value you supply for AdditionalSGs doesn’t have any spaces in it.
3. I declare PrimarySG as a Parameter here – it’s just for brevity so I don’t have to include an actual AWS::EC2::SecurityGroup Resource that in turn requires a VPC, and so on.
4. What’s with all Splits and Joins? Well, SecurityGroups is a List, which means that we first must make a String from all our SGs, and then Split the result. Since AdditionalSGs is a CommaDelimitedList (and not a String), it needs to be run through Fn::Join (line 46), as well. Yeah, ugly.

I am making a buch of assumptions about what you, dear reader, already know – so shout out in comments if something is still muddy.