unifying OS installation and configuration management

Three years ago, I realized that propellor (my configuration management system that is configured using haskell) could be used as an installer for Debian (or other versions of Linux). In propellor is d-i 2.0, I guessed it would take "a month and adding a few thousand lines of code".

I've now taken that month, and written that code, and I presented the result at DebConf yesterday. I demoed propellor building a live Debian installation image, and then handed it off to a volenteer from the audience to play with its visual user interface and perform the installation. The whole demo took around 20 minutes, and ended with a standard Debian desktop installation. (Video)

The core idea is to reuse the same configuration management system for several different purposes.

  1. Building a bootable disk image that can be used as both a live system and as an OS installer.
  2. Running on that live system, to install the target system. Which can just involve copying the live system to the target disk and then letting the configuration management system make the necessary changes to get from the live system configuration to the target system configuration.
  3. To support such things as headless arm boards, building customized images tuned for the target board and use case, that can then simply be copied to the board to install.
  4. Optionally, running on the installed system later, to futher customize it. Starting from the same configuration that produced the installed system in the first place.

There can be enourmous code reuse here, and improvements made for one of those will often benefit all the rest as well.

Once everything is handled by configuration management, all user interface requirements become just a matter of editing the configuration. Including:

  • A user interface that runs on the live system and gets whatever input is needed to install to the target system. This is really just a config editor underneath. I built a prototype gamified interface that's as minimal as such an interface could get.
  • With a regular text editor, of course. This is the equivilant of preseeding in d-i, giving advanced users full control over the system that gets built. Unlike with preseeding, users have the full power of a configuration management system, so can specify precisely the system they want installed.
  • A separate user interface for customizing disk images, for arm boards and similar use cases. This would run on a server, or on the user's own laptop.

That's the gist of it. Configuration management reused for installation and image building, and multiple editor interfaces to make it widely usable.

I was glad, sitting in to a BoF session before my talk, that several people in Debian are already thinking along similar lines. And if Debian wanted to take this work and run with it, I'd be glad to assist as propellor's maintainer. But the idea is more important than the code and I hope my elaboration of it helps point a way if not the way.

While what I've built installs Debian, little of it is Debian-specific. It would probably be easy to port it to Arch Linux, which propellor already supports. There are Linux-specific parts, so porting to FreeBSD would be harder, but propellor knows, at the type level which OSs properties support, which will ease porting.

GuixSD and NixOS already use configuration management for installation, and were part of my inspiration. I've extended what they do in some ways (in other ways they remain far ahead).


The code is here. And here are some links to more details about what I built, and ideas encountered along the way:

Posted
Functional Reactive Propellor

I wrote this code, and it made me super happy!

data Variety = Installer | Target
    deriving (Eq)

seed :: UserInput -> Versioned Variety Host
seed userinput ver = host "foo"
    & ver (   (== Installer) --> hostname "installer"
          <|> (== Target)    --> hostname (inputHostname userinput)
          )
    & osDebian Unstable X86_64
    & Apt.stdSourcesList
    & Apt.installed ["linux-image-amd64"]
    & Grub.installed PC
    & XFCE.installed
    & ver (   (== Installer) --> desktopUser defaultUser
          <|> (== Target)    --> desktopUser (inputUsername userinput)
          )
    & ver (   (== Installer) --> autostartInstaller )

This is doing so much in so little space and with so little fuss! It's completely defining two different versions of a Host. One version is the Installer, which in turn installs the Target. The code above provides all the information that propellor needs to convert a copy of the Installer into the Target, which it can do very efficiently. For example, it knows that the default user account should be deleted, and a new user account created based on the user's input of their name.

The germ of this idea comes from a short presentation I made about propellor in Portland several years ago. I was describing RevertableProperty, and Joachim Breitner pointed out that to use it, the user essentially has to keep track of the evolution of their Host in their head. It would be better for propellor to know what past versions looked like, so it can know when a RevertableProperty needs to be reverted.

I didn't see a way to address the objection for years. I was hung up on the problem that propellor's properties can't be compared for equality, because functions can't be compared for equality (generally). And on the problem that it would be hard for propellor to pull old versions of a Host out of git. But then I ran into the situation where I needed these two closely related hosts to be defined in a single file, and it all fell into place.

The basic idea is that propellor first reverts all the revertible properties for other versions. Then it ensures the property for the current version.

Another use for it would be if you wanted to be able to roll back changes to a Host. For example:

foos :: Versioned Int Host
foos ver = host "foo"
    & hostname "foo.example.com"
    & ver (   (== 1) --> Apache.modEnabled "mpm_worker"
          <|> (>= 2) --> Apache.modEnabled "mpm_event"
          )
    & ver ( (>= 3)   --> Apt.unattendedUpgrades )

foo :: Host
foo = foos `version` (4 :: Int)

Versioned properties can also be defined:

foobar :: Versioned Int -> RevertableProperty DebianLike DebianLike
foobar ver =
    ver (   (== 1) --> (Apt.installed "foo" <!> Apt.removed "foo")
        <|> (== 2) --> (Apt.installed "bar" <!> Apt.removed "bar")
        )

Notice that I've embedded a small DSL for versioning into the propellor config file syntax. While implementing versioning took all day, that part was super easy; Haskell config files win again!

API documentation for this feature

PS: Not really FRP, probably. But time-varying in a FRP-like way.


Development of this was sponsored by Jake Vosloo on Patreon.

Posted
Linux.Conf.Au 2017 presentation on Propellor

On January 18th, I'll be presenting "Type driven configuration management with Propellor" at Linux.Conf.Au in Hobart, Tasmania. Abstract

Linux.Conf.Au is a wonderful conference, and I'm thrilled to be able to attend it again.

--

Update: My presentation on keysafe has also been accepted for the Security MiniConf at LCA, January 17th.

Posted
type safe multi-OS Propellor

Propellor was recently ported to FreeBSD, by Evan Cofsky. This new feature led me down a two week long rabbit hole to make it type safe. In particular, Propellor needed to be taught that some properties work on Debian, others on FreeBSD, and others on both.

The user shouldn't need to worry about making a mistake like this; the type checker should tell them they're asking for something that can't fly.

-- Is this a Debian or a FreeBSD host? I can't remember, let's use both package managers!
host "example.com" $ props
    & aptUpgraded
    & pkgUpgraded

As of propellor 3.0.0 (in git now; to be released soon), the type checker will catch such mistakes.

Also, it's really easy to combine two OS-specific properties into a property that supports both OS's:

upgraded = aptUpgraded `pickOS` pkgUpgraded

type level lists and functions

The magick making this work is type-level lists. A property has a metatypes list as part of its type. (So called because it's additional types describing the type, and I couldn't find a better name.) This list can contain one or more OS's targeted by the property:

aptUpgraded :: Property (MetaTypes '[ 'Targeting 'OSDebian, 'Targeting 'OSBuntish ])

pkgUpgraded :: Property (MetaTypes '[ 'Targeting 'OSFreeBSD ])

In Haskell type-level lists and other DataKinds are indicated by the ' if you have not seen that before. There are some convenience aliases and type operators, which let the same types be expressed more cleanly:

aptUpgraded :: Property (Debian + Buntish)

pkgUpgraded :: Property FreeBSD

Whenever two properties are combined, their metatypes are combined using a type-level function. Combining aptUpgraded and pkgUpgraded will yield a metatypes that targets no OS's, since they have none in common. So will fail to type check.

My implementation of the metatypes lists is hundreds of lines of code, consisting entirely of types and type families. It includes a basic implementation of singletons, and is portable back to ghc 7.6 to support Debian stable. While it takes some contortions to support such an old version of ghc, it's pretty awesome that the ghc in Debian stable supports this stuff.

extending beyond targeted OS's

Before this change, Propellor's Property type had already been slightly refined, tagging them with HasInfo or NoInfo, as described in making propellor safer with GADTs and type families. I needed to keep that HasInfo in the type of properties.

But, it seemed unnecessary verbose to have types like Property NoInfo Debian. Especially if I want to add even more information to Property types later. Property NoInfo Debian NoPortsOpen would be a real mouthful to need to write for every property.

Luckily I now have this handy type-level list. So, I can shove more types into it, so Property (HasInfo + Debian) is used where necessary, and Property Debian can be used everywhere else.

Since I can add more types to the type-level list, without affecting other properties, I expect to be able to implement type-level port conflict detection next. Should be fairly easy to do without changing the API except for properties that use ports.

singletons

As shown here, pickOS makes a property that decides which of two properties to use based on the host's OS.

aptUpgraded :: Property DebianLike
aptUpgraded = property "apt upgraded" (apt "upgrade" `requires` apt "update")

pkgUpgraded :: Property FreeBSD
pkgUpgraded = property "pkg upgraded" (pkg "upgrade")
    
upgraded :: Property UnixLike
upgraded = (aptUpgraded `pickOS` pkgUpgraded)
    `describe` "OS upgraded"

Any number of OS's can be chained this way, to build a property that is super-portable out of simple little non-portable properties. This is a sweet combinator!

Singletons are types that are inhabited by a single value. This lets the value be inferred from the type, which came in handy in building the pickOS property combinator.

Its implementation needs to be able to look at each of the properties at runtime, to compare the OS's they target with the actial OS of the host. That's done by stashing a target list value inside a property. The target list value is inferred from the type of the property, thanks to singletons, and so does not need to be passed in to property. That saves keyboard time and avoids mistakes.

is it worth it?

It's important to consider whether more complicated types are a net benefit. Of course, opinions vary widely on that question in general! But let's consider it in light of my main goals for Propellor:

  1. Help save the user from pushing a broken configuration to their machines at a time when they're down in the trenches dealing with some urgent problem at 3 am.
  2. Advance the state of the art in configuration management by taking advantage of the state of the art in strongly typed haskell.

This change definitely meets both criteria. But there is a tradeoff; it got a little bit harder to write new propellor properties. Not only do new properties need to have their type set to target appropriate systems, but the more polymorphic code is, the more likely the type checker can't figure out all the types without some help.

A simple example of this problem is as follows.

foo :: Property UnixLike
foo = p `requires` bar
  where
    p = property "foo" $ do
        ...

The type checker will complain that "The type variable ‘metatypes1’ is ambiguous". Problem is that it can't infer the type of p because many different types could be combined with the bar property and all would yield a Property UnixLike. The solution is simply to add a type signature like p :: Property UnixLike

Since this only affects creating new properties, and not combining existing properties (which have known types), it seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

things to improve later

There are a few warts that I'm willing to live with for now...

Currently, Property (HasInfo + Debian) is different than Property (Debian + HasInfo), but they should really be considered to be the same type. That is, I need type-level sets, not lists. While there's a type level sets library for hackage, it still seems to require a specific order of the set items when writing down a type signature.

Also, using ensureProperty, which runs one property inside the action of another property, got complicated by the need to pass it a type witness.

foo = Property Debian
foo = property' $ \witness -> do
    ensureProperty witness (aptInstall "foo")

That witness is used to type check that the inner property targets every OS that the outer property targets. I think it might be possible to store the witness in the monad, and have ensureProperty read it, but it might complicate the type of the monad too much, since it would have to be parameterized on the type of the witness.

Oh no, I mentioned monads. While type level lists and type functions and generally bending the type checker to my will is all well and good, I know most readers stop reading at "monad". So, I'll stop writing. ;)

thanks

Thanks to David Miani who answered my first tentative question with a big hunk of example code that got me on the right track.

Also to many other people who answered increasingly esoteric Haskell type system questions.

Also thanks to the Shuttleworth foundation, which funded this work by way of a Flash Grant.

letsencrypt support in propellor

I've integrated letsencrypt into propellor today.

I'm using the reference letsencrypt client. While I've seen complaints that it has a lot of dependencies and is too complicated, it seemed to only need to pull in a few packages, and use only a few megabytes of disk space, and it has fewer options than ls does. So seems fine. (Although it would be nice to have some alternatives packaged in Debian.)

I ended up implementing this:

letsEncrypt :: AgreeTOS -> Domain -> WebRoot -> Property NoInfo

This property just makes the certificate available, it does not configure the web server to use it. This avoids relying on the letsencrypt client's apache config munging, which is probably useful for many people, but not those of us using configuration management systems. And so avoids most of the complicated magic that the letsencrypt client has a reputation for.

Instead, any property that wants to use the certificate can just use leteencrypt to get it and set up the server when it makes a change to the certificate:

letsEncrypt (LetsEncrypt.AgreeTOS (Just "me@my.domain")) "example.com" "/var/www"
    `onChange` setupthewebserver

(Took me a while to notice I could use onChange like that, and so divorce the cert generation/renewal from the server setup. onChange is awesome! This blog post has been updated accordingly.)

In practice, the http site has to be brought up first, and then letsencrypt run, and then the cert installed and the https site brought up using it. That dance is automated by this property:

Apache.httpsVirtualHost "example.com" "/var/www"
    (LetsEncrypt.AgreeTOS (Just "me@my.domain"))

That's about as simple a configuration as I can imagine for such a website!


The two parts of letsencrypt that are complicated are not the fault of the client really. Those are renewal and rate limiting.

I'm currently rate limited for the next week because I asked letsencrypt for several certificates for a domain, as I was learning how to use it and integrating it into propellor. So I've not quite managed to fully test everything. That's annoying. I also worry that rate limiting could hit at an inopportune time once I'm relying on letsencrypt. It's especially problimatic that it only allows 5 certs for subdomains of a given domain per week. What if I use a lot of subdomains?

Renewal is complicated mostly because there's no good way to test it. You set up your cron job, or whatever, and wait three months, and hopefully it worked. Just as likely, you got something wrong, and your website breaks. Maybe letsencrypt could offer certificates that will only last an hour, or a day, for use when testing renewal.

Also, what if something goes wrong with renewal? Perhaps letsencrypt.org is not available when your certificate needs to be renewed.

What I've done in propellor to handle renewal is, it runs letsencrypt every time, with the --keep-until-expiring option. If this fails, propellor will report a failure. As long as propellor is run periodically by a cron job, this should result in multiple failure reports being sent (for 30 days I think) before a cert expires without getting renewed. But, I have not been able to test this.

propelling disk images

Following up on Then and Now ...

In quiet moments at ICFP last August, I finished teaching Propellor to generate disk images. With an emphasis on doing a whole lot with very little new code and extreme amount of code reuse.

For example, let's make a disk image with nethack on it. First, we need to define a chroot. Disk image creation reuses propellor's chroot support, described back in propelling containers. Any propellor properties can be assigned to the chroot, so it's easy to describe the system we want.

 nethackChroot :: FilePath -> Chroot
    nethackChroot d = Chroot.debootstrapped (System (Debian Stable) "amd64") mempty d
        & Apt.installed ["linux-image-amd64"]
        & Apt.installed ["nethack-console"]
        & accountFor gamer
        & gamer `hasInsecurePassword` "hello"
        & gamer `hasLoginShell` "/usr/games/nethack"
      where gamer = User "gamer"

Now to make an image from that chroot, we just have to tell propellor where to put the image file, some partitioning information, and to make it boot using grub.

 nethackImage :: RevertableProperty
    nethackImage = imageBuilt "/srv/images/nethack.img" nethackChroot
        MSDOS (grubBooted PC)
        [ partition EXT2 `mountedAt` "/boot"
            `setFlag` BootFlag
        , partition EXT4 `mountedAt` "/"
            `addFreeSpace` MegaBytes 100
        , swapPartition (MegaBytes 256)
        ]

The disk image partitions default to being sized to fit exactly the files from the chroot that go into each partition, so, the disk image is as small as possible by default. There's a little DSL to configure the partitions. To give control over the partition size, it has some functions, like addFreeSpace and setSize. Other functions like setFlag and extended can further adjust the partitions. I think that worked out rather well; the partition specification is compact and avoids unecessary hardcoded sizes, while providing plenty of control.

By the end of ICFP, I had Propellor building complete disk images, but no boot loader installed on them.


Fast forward to today. After stuggling with some strange grub behavior, I found a working method to install grub onto a disk image.

The whole disk image feature weighs in at:

203 lines to interface with parted
88 lines to format and mount partitions
90 lines for the partition table specification DSL and partition sizing
196 lines to generate disk images
75 lines to install grub on a disk image
652 lines of code total

Which is about half the size of vmdebootstrap 1/4th the size of partman-base (probably 1/100th the size of total partman), and 1/13th the size of live-build. All of which do similar things, in ways that seem to me to be much less flexible than Propellor.


One thing I'm considering doing is extending this so Propellor can use qemu-user-static to create disk images for eg, arm. Add some u-boot setup, and this could create bootable images for arm boards. A library of configs for various arm boards could then be included in Propellor. This would be a lot easier than running the Debian Installer on an arm board.

Oh! I only just now realized that if you have a propellor host configured, like this example for my dialup gateway, leech --

 leech = host "leech.kitenet.net"
        & os (System (Debian (Stable "jessie")) "armel")
        & Apt.installed ["linux-image-kirkwood", "ppp", "screen", "iftop"]
        & privContent "/etc/ppp/peers/provider"
        & privContent "/etc/ppp/pap-secrets"
        & Ppp.onBoot
        & hasPassword (User "root")
        & Ssh.installed

-- The host's properties can be extracted from it, using eg hostProperties leech and reused to create a disk image with the same properties as the host!

So, when my dialup gateway gets struck by lightning again, I could use this to build a disk image for its replacement:

 import qualified Propellor.Property.Hardware.SheevaPlug as SheevaPlug

    laptop = host "darkstar.kitenet.net"
        & SheevaPlug.diskImage "/srv/images/leech.img" (MegaBytes 2000)
            (& propertyList "has all of leech's properties"
                (hostProperties leech))

This also means you can start with a manually built system, write down the properties it has, and iteratively run Propellor against it until you think you have a full specification of it, and then use that to generate a new, clean disk image. Nice way to transition from sysadmin days of yore to a clean declaratively specified system.

propellor orchestration

With the disclamer that I don't really know much about orchestration, I have added support for something resembling it to Propellor.

Until now, when using propellor to manage a bunch of hosts, you updated them one at a time by running propellor --spin $somehost, or maybe you set up a central git repository, and a cron job to run propellor on each host, pulling changes from git.

I like both of these ways to use propellor, but they only go so far...

  • Perhaps you have a lot of hosts, and would like to run propellor on them all concurrently.

      master = host "master.example.com"
          & concurrently conducts alotofhosts
    
  • Perhaps you want to run propellor on your dns server last, so when you add a new webserver host, it gets set up and working before the dns is updated to point to it.

      master = host "master.example.com"
          & conducts webservers
              `before` conducts dnsserver
    
  • Perhaps you have something more complex, with multiple subnets that propellor can run in concurrently, finishing up by updating that dnsserver.

      master = host "master.example.com"
          & concurrently conducts [sub1, sub2]
              `before` conducts dnsserver
    
      sub1 = "master.subnet1.example.com"
          & concurrently conducts webservers
          & conducts loadbalancers
    
      sub2 = "master.subnet2.example.com"
          & conducts dockerservers
    
  • Perhaps you need to first run some command that creates a VPS host, and then want to run propellor on that host to set it up.

      vpscreate h = cmdProperty "vpscreate" [hostName h]
          `before` conducts h
    

All those scenarios are supported by propellor now!

Well, I haven't actually implemented concurrently yet, but the point is that the conducts property can be used with any of propellor's property combinators, like before etc, to express all kinds of scenarios.

The conducts property works in combination with an orchestrate function to set up all the necessary stuff to let one host ssh into another and run propellor there.

main = defaultMain (orchestrate hosts)

hosts = 
    [ master
    , webservers 
    , ...
    ]

The orchestrate function does a bunch of stuff:

  • Builds up a graph of what conducts what.
  • Removes any cycles that might have snuck in by accident, before they cause foot shooting.
  • Arranges for the ssh keys to be accepted as necessary.
    Note that you you need to add ssh key properties to all relevant hosts so it knows what keys to trust.
  • Arranges for the private data of a host to be provided to the hosts that conduct it, so they can pass it along.

I've very pleased that I was able to add the Propellor.Property.Conductor module implementing this with only a tiny change to the rest of propellor. Almost everything needed to implement it was there in propellor's infrastructure already.

Also kind of cool that it only needed 13 lines of imperative code, the other several hundred lines of the implementation being all pure code.

it's a bird, it's a plane, it's a super monoid for propellor

I've been doing a little bit of dynamically typed programming in Haskell, to improve Propellor's Info type. The result is kind of interesting in a scary way.

Info started out as a big record type, containing all the different sorts of metadata that Propellor needed to keep track of. Host IP addresses, DNS entries, ssh public keys, docker image configuration parameters... This got quite out of hand. Info needed to have its hands in everything, even types that should have been private to their module.

To fix that, recent versions of Propellor let a single Info contain many different types of values. Look at it one way and it contains DNS entries; look at it another way and it contains ssh public keys, etc.

As an émigré from lands where you can never know what type of value is in a $foo until you look, this was a scary prospect at first, but I found it's possible to have the benefits of dynamic types and the safety of static types too.

The key to doing it is Data.Dynamic. Thanks to Joachim Breitner for suggesting I could use it here. What I arrived at is this type (slightly simplified):

newtype Info = Info [Dynamic]
    deriving (Monoid)

So Info is a monoid, and it holds of a bunch of dynamic values, which could each be of any type at all. Eep!

So far, this is utterly scary to me. To tame it, the Info constructor is not exported, and so the only way to create an Info is to start with mempty and use this function:

addInfo :: (IsInfo v, Monoid v) => Info -> v -> Info
addInfo (Info l) v = Info (toDyn v : l)

The important part of that is that only allows adding values that are in the IsInfo type class. That prevents the foot shooting associated with dynamic types, by only allowing use of types that make sense as Info. Otherwise arbitrary Strings etc could be passed to addInfo by accident, and all get concated together, and that would be a total dynamic programming mess.

Anything you can add into an Info, you can get back out:

getInfo :: (IsInfo v, Monoid v) => Info -> v
getInfo (Info l) = mconcat (mapMaybe fromDynamic (reverse l))

Only monoids can be stored in Info, so if you ask for a type that an Info doesn't contain, you'll get back mempty.

Crucially, IsInfo is an open type class. Any module in Propellor can make a new data type and make it an instance of IsInfo, and then that new data type can be stored in the Info of a Property, and any Host that uses the Property will have that added to its Info, available for later introspection.


For example, this weekend I'm extending Propellor to have controllers: Hosts that are responsible for running Propellor on some other hosts. Useful if you want to run propellor once and have it update the configuration of an entire network of hosts.

There can be whole chains of controllers controlling other controllers etc. The problem is, what if host foo has the property controllerFor bar and host bar has the property controllerFor foo? I want to avoid a loop of foo running Propellor on bar, running Propellor on foo, ...

To detect such loops, each Host's Info should contain a list of the Hosts it's controlling. Which is not hard to accomplish:

newtype Controlling = Controlled [Host]
    deriving (Typeable, Monoid)

isControlledBy :: Host -> Controlling -> Bool
h `isControlledBy` (Controlled hs) = any (== hostName h) (map hostName hs)

instance IsInfo Controlling where
    propigateInfo _ = True

mkControllingInfo :: Host -> Info
mkControllingInfo controlled = addInfo mempty (Controlled [controlled])

getControlledBy :: Host -> Controlling
getControlledBy = getInfo . hostInfo

isControllerLoop :: Host -> Host -> Bool
isControllerLoop controller controlled = go S.empty controlled
  where
    go checked h
        | controller `isControlledBy` c = True
        -- avoid checking loops that have been checked before
        | hostName h `S.member` checked = False
        | otherwise = any (go (S.insert (hostName h) checked)) l
      where
        c@(Controlled l) = getControlledBy h

This is all internal to the module that needs it; the rest of propellor doesn't need to know that the Info is using used for this. And yet, the necessary information about Hosts is gathered as propellor runs.


So, that's a useful technique. I do wonder if I could somehow make addInfo combine together values in the list that have the same type; as it is the list can get long. And, to show Info, the best I could do was this:

 instance Show Info where
            show (Info l) = "Info " ++ show (map dynTypeRep l)

The resulting long list of the types of vales stored in a host's info is not a useful as it could be. Of course, getInfo can be used to get any particular type of value:

*Main> hostInfo kite
Info [InfoVal System,PrivInfo,PrivInfo,Controlling,DnsInfo,DnsInfo,DnsInfo,AliasesInfo, ...
*Main> getInfo (hostInfo kite) :: AliasesInfo
AliasesInfo (fromList ["downloads.kitenet.net","git.joeyh.name","imap.kitenet.net","nntp.olduse.net" ...

And finally, I keep trying to think of a better name than "Info".

making propellor safer with GADTs and type families

Since July, I have been aware of an ugly problem with propellor. Certain propellor configurations could have a bug. I've tried to solve the problem at least a half-dozen times without success; it's eaten several weekends.

Today I finally managed to fix propellor so it's impossible to write code that has the bug, bending the Haskell type checker to my will with the power of GADTs and type-level functions.

the bug

Code with the bug looked innocuous enough. Something like this:

foo :: Property
foo = property "foo" $
    unlessM (liftIO $ doesFileExist "/etc/foo") $ do
        bar <- liftIO $ readFile "/etc/foo.template"
        ensureProperty $ setupFoo bar

The problem comes about because some properties in propellor have Info associated with them. This is used by propellor to introspect over the properties of a host, and do things like set up DNS, or decrypt private data used by the property.

At the same time, it's useful to let a Property internally decide to run some other Property. In the example above, that's the ensureProperty line, and the setupFoo Property is run only sometimes, and is passed data that is read from the filesystem.

This makes it very hard, indeed probably impossible for Propellor to look inside the monad, realize that setupFoo is being used, and add its Info to the host.

Probably, setupFoo doesn't have Info associated with it -- most properties do not. But, it's hard to tell, when writing such a Property if it's safe to use ensureProperty. And worse, setupFoo could later be changed to have Info.

Now, in most languages, once this problem was noticed, the solution would probably be to make ensureProperty notice when it's called on a Property that has Info, and print a warning message. That's Good Enough in a sense.

But it also really stinks as a solution. It means that building propellor isn't good enough to know you have a working system; you have to let it run on each host, and watch out for warnings. Ugh, no!

the solution

This screams for GADTs. (Well, it did once I learned how what GADTs are and what they can do.)

With GADTs, Property NoInfo and Property HasInfo can be separate data types. Most functions will work on either type (Property i) but ensureProperty can be limited to only accept a Property NoInfo.

data Property i where
    IProperty :: Desc -> ... -> Info -> Property HasInfo
    SProperty :: Desc -> ... -> Property NoInfo

data HasInfo
data NoInfo

ensureProperty :: Property NoInfo -> Propellor Result

Then the type checker can detect the bug, and refuse to compile it.

Yay!

Except ...

Property combinators

There are a lot of Property combinators in propellor. These combine two or more properties in various ways. The most basic one is requires, which only runs the first Property after the second one has successfully been met.

So, what's it's type when used with GADT Property?

requires :: Property i1 -> Property i2 -> Property ???

It seemed I needed some kind of type class, to vary the return type.

class Combine x y r where
    requires :: x -> y -> r

Now I was able to write 4 instances of Combines, for each combination of 2 Properties with HasInfo or NoInfo.

It type checked. But, type inference was busted. A simple expression like

foo `requires` bar

blew up:

   No instance for (Requires (Property HasInfo) (Property HasInfo) r0)
      arising from a use of `requires'
    The type variable `r0' is ambiguous
    Possible fix: add a type signature that fixes these type variable(s)
    Note: there is a potential instance available:
      instance Requires
                 (Property HasInfo) (Property HasInfo) (Property HasInfo)
        -- Defined at Propellor/Types.hs:167:10

To avoid that, it needed ":: Property HasInfo" appended -- I didn't want the user to need to write that.

I got stuck here for an long time, well over a month.

type level programming

Finally today I realized that I could fix this with a little type-level programming.

class Combine x y where
    requires :: x -> y -> CombinedType x y

Here CombinedType is a type-level function, that calculates the type that should be used for a combination of types x and y. This turns out to be really easy to do, once you get your head around type level functions.

type family CInfo x y
type instance CInfo HasInfo HasInfo = HasInfo
type instance CInfo HasInfo NoInfo = HasInfo
type instance CInfo NoInfo HasInfo = HasInfo
type instance CInfo NoInfo NoInfo = NoInfo
type family CombinedType x y
type instance CombinedType (Property x) (Property y) = Property (CInfo x y)

And, with that change, type inference worked again! \o/

(Bonus: I added some more intances of CombinedType for combining things like RevertableProperties, so propellor's property combinators got more powerful too.)

Then I just had to make a massive pass over all of Propellor, fixing the types of each Property to be Property NoInfo or Property HasInfo. I frequently picked the wrong one, but the type checker was able to detect and tell me when I did.

A few of the type signatures got slightly complicated, to provide the type checker with sufficient proof to do its thing...

before :: (IsProp x, Combines y x, IsProp (CombinedType y x)) => x -> y -> CombinedType y x
before x y = (y `requires` x) `describe` (propertyDesc x)

onChange
    :: (Combines (Property x) (Property y))
    => Property x
    => Property y
    => CombinedType (Property x) (Property y)
onChange = -- 6 lines of code omitted

fallback :: (Combines (Property p1) (Property p2)) => Property p1 -> Property p2 -> Property (CInfo p1 p2)
fallback = -- 4 lines of code omitted

.. This mostly happened in property combinators, which is an acceptable tradeoff, when you consider that the type checker is now being used to prove that propellor can't have this bug.

Mostly, things went just fine. The only other annoying thing was that some things use a [Property], and since a haskell list can only contain a single type, while Property Info and Property NoInfo are two different types, that needed to be dealt with. Happily, I was able to extend propellor's existing (&) and (!) operators to work in this situation, so a list can be constructed of properties of several different types:

propertyList "foos" $ props
    & foo
    & foobar
    ! oldfoo    

conclusion

The resulting 4000 lines of changes will be in the next release of propellor. Just as soon as I test that it always generates the same Info as before, and perhaps works when I run it. (eep)

These uses of GADTs and type families are not new; this is merely the first time I used them. It's another Haskell leveling up for me.

Anytime you can identify a class of bugs that can impact a complicated code base, and rework the code base to completely avoid that class of bugs, is a time to celebrate!

clean OS reinstalls with propellor

You have a machine someplace, probably in The Cloud, and it has Linux installed, but not to your liking. You want to do a clean reinstall, maybe switching the distribution, or getting rid of the cruft. But this requires running an installer, and it's too difficult to run d-i on remote machines.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could point a program at that machine and have it do a reinstall, on the fly, while the machine was running?

This is what I've now taught propellor to do! Here's a working configuration which will make propellor convert a system running Fedora (or probably many other Linux distros) to Debian:

testvm :: Host
testvm = host "testvm.kitenet.net"
        & os (System (Debian Unstable) "amd64")
        & OS.cleanInstallOnce (OS.Confirmed "testvm.kitenet.net")
                `onChange` propertyList "fixing up after clean install"
                        [ User.shadowConfig True
                        , OS.preserveRootSshAuthorized
                        , OS.preserveResolvConf
                        , Apt.update
                        , Grub.boots "/dev/sda"
                                `requires` Grub.installed Grub.PC
                        ]
        & Hostname.sane
        & Hostname.searchDomain
        & Apt.installed ["linux-image-amd64"]
        & Apt.installed ["ssh"]
        & User.hasSomePassword "root"

And here's a video of it in action.


It was surprisingly easy to build this. Propellor already knew how to create a chroot, so from there it basically just has to move files around until the chroot takes over from the old OS.

After the cleanInstallOnce property does its thing, propellor is running inside a freshly debootstrapped Debian system. Then we just need a few more Propertites to get from there to a bootable, usable system: Install grub and the kernel, turn on shadow passwords, preserve a few config files from the old OS, etc.

It's really astounding to me how much easier this was to build than it was to build d-i. It took years to get d-i to the point of being able to install a working system. It took me a few part days to add this capability to propellor (It's 200 lines of code), and I've probably spent a total of less than 30 days total developing propellor in its entirity.

So, what gives? Why is this so much easier? There are a lot of reasons:

  • Technology is so much better now. I can spin up cloud VMs for testing in seconds; I use VirtualBox to restore a system from a snapshot. So testing is much much easier. The first work on d-i was done by booting real machines, and for a while I was booting them using floppies.

  • Propellor doesn't have a user interface. The best part of d-i is preseeding, but that was mostly an accident; when I started developing d-i the first thing I wrote was main-menu (which is invisible 99.9% of the time) and we had to develop cdebconf, and tons of other UI. Probably 90% of d-i work involves the UI. Jettisoning the UI entirely thus speeds up development enormously. And propellor's configuration file blows d-i preseeding out of the water in expressiveness and flexability.

  • Propellor has a much more principled design and implementation. Separating things into Properties, which are composable and reusable gives enormous leverage. Strong type checking and a powerful programming language make it much easier to develop than d-i's mess of shell scripts calling underpowered busybox commands etc. Properties often Just Work the first time they're tested.

  • No separate runtime. d-i runs in its own environment, which is really a little custom linux distribution. Developing linux distributions is hard. Propellor drops into a live system and runs there. So I don't need to worry about booting up the system, getting it on the network, etc etc. This probably removes another order of magnitude of complexity from propellor as compared with d-i.

This seems like the opposite of the Second System effect to me. So perhaps d-i was the second system all along?

I don't know if I'm going to take this all the way to propellor is d-i 2.0. But in theory, all that's needed now is:

  • Teaching propellor how to build a bootable image, containing a live Debian system and propellor. (Yes, this would mean reimplementing debian-live, but I estimate 100 lines of code to do it in propellor; most of the Properties needed already exist.) That image would then be booted up and perform the installation.
  • Some kind of UI that generates the propellor config file.
  • Adding Properties to partition the disk.

cleanInstallOnce and associated Properties will be included in propellor's upcoming 1.1.0 release, and are available in git now.

Oh BTW, you could parameterize a few Properties by OS, and Propellor could be used to install not just Debian or Ubuntu, but whatever Linux distribution you want. Patches welcomed...

propelling containers

Propellor has supported docker containers for a "long" time, and it works great. This week I've worked on adding more container support.

docker containers (revisited)

The syntax for docker containers has changed slightly. Here's how it looks now:

example :: Host
example = host "example.com"
    & Docker.docked webserverContainer

webserverContainer :: Docker.Container
webserverContainer = Docker.container "webserver" (Docker.latestImage "joeyh/debian-stable")
    & os (System (Debian (Stable "wheezy")) "amd64")
    & Docker.publish "80:80"
    & Apt.serviceInstalledRunning "apache2"
    & alias "www.example.com"

That makes example.com have a web server in a docker container, as you'd expect, and when propellor is used to deploy the DNS server it'll automatically make www.example.com point to the host (or hosts!) where this container is docked.

I use docker a lot, but I have drank little of the Docker KoolAid. I'm not keen on using random blobs created by random third parties using either unreproducible methods, or the weirdly underpowered dockerfiles. (As for vast complicated collections of containers that each run one program and talk to one another etc ... I'll wait and see.)

That's why propellor runs inside the docker container and deploys whatever configuration I tell it to, in a way that's both replicatable later and lets me use the full power of Haskell.

Which turns out to be useful when moving on from docker containers to something else...

systemd-nspawn containers

Propellor now supports containers using systemd-nspawn. It looks a lot like the docker example.

example :: Host
example = host "example.com"
    & Systemd.persistentJournal
    & Systemd.nspawned webserverContainer

webserverContainer :: Systemd.Container
webserverContainer = Systemd.container "webserver" chroot
    & Apt.serviceInstalledRunning "apache2"
    & alias "www.example.com"
  where
    chroot = Chroot.debootstrapped (System (Debian Unstable) "amd64") Debootstrap.MinBase

Notice how I specified the Debian Unstable chroot that forms the basis of this container. Propellor sets up the container by running debootstrap, boots it up using systemd-nspawn, and then runs inside the container to provision it.

Unlike docker containers, systemd-nspawn containers use systemd as their init, and it all integrates rather beautifully. You can see the container listed in systemctl status, including the services running inside it, use journalctl to examine its logs, etc.

But no, systemd is the devil, and docker is too trendy...

chroots

Propellor now also supports deploying good old chroots. It looks a lot like the other containers. Rather than repeat myself a third time, and because we don't really run webservers inside chroots much, here's a slightly different example.

example :: Host
example = host "mylaptop"
    & Chroot.provisioned (buildDepChroot "git-annex")

buildDepChroot :: Apt.Package -> Chroot.Chroot
buildDepChroot pkg = Chroot.debootstrapped system Debootstrap.BuildD dir
    & Apt.buildDep pkg
  where
    dir = /srv/chroot/builddep/"++pkg
   system = System (Debian Unstable) "amd64"

Again this uses debootstrap to build the chroot, and then it runs propellor inside the chroot to provision it (btw without bothering to install propellor there, thanks to the magic of bind mounts and completely linux distribution-independent packaging).

In fact, the systemd-nspawn container code reuses the chroot code, and so turns out to be really rather simple. 132 lines for the chroot support, and 167 lines for the systemd support (which goes somewhat beyond the nspawn containers shown above).

Which leads to the hardest part of all this...

debootstrap

Making a propellor property for debootstrap should be easy. And it was, for Debian systems. However, I have crazy plans that involve running propellor on non-Debian systems, to debootstrap something, and installing debootstrap on an arbitrary linux system is ... too hard.

In the end, I needed 253 lines of code to do it, which is barely one magnitude less code than the size of debootstrap itself. I won't go into the ugly details, but this could be made a lot easier if debootstrap catered more to being used outside of Debian.

closing

Docker and systemd-nspawn have different strengths and weaknesses, and there are sure to be more container systems to come. I'm pleased that Propellor can add support for a new container system in a few hundred lines of code, and that it abstracts away all the unimportant differences between these systems.

PS

Seems likely that systemd-nspawn containers can be nested to any depth. So, here's a new kind of fork bomb!

infinitelyNestedContainer :: Systemd.Container
infinitelyNestedContainer = Systemd.container "evil-systemd"
    (Chroot.debootstrapped (System (Debian Unstable) "amd64") Debootstrap.MinBase)
    & Systemd.nspawned infinitelyNestedContainer

Strongly typed purely functional container deployment can only protect us against a certian subset of all badly thought out systems. ;)


Note that the above was written in 2014 and some syntatix details have changed. See the documentation for Propellor.Property.Chroot, Propellor.Property.Debootstrap, Propellor.Property.Docker, Propellor.Property.Systemd for current examples.

propellor is d-i 2.0

I think I've been writing the second system to replace d-i with in my spare time for a couple months, and never noticed.

I'm as suprised as you are, but consider this design:

  • Installation system consists of debian live + haskell + propellor + web browser.

  • Entire installation UI consists of a web-based (and entirely pictographic and prompt based, so does not need to be translated) selection of the installation target.

  • Installation target can be local disk, remote system via ssh (wiping out crufty hacked-up pre-installed debian), local VM, live ISO, etc.

  • Really, no other questions. Not even user name/password! The installed system will only allow login via the same method that was used to install it. So a locally installed system will accept console/X login with no password and then a forced password change. Or a system installed via ssh will only allow login using the same ssh key that was used to install it.

  • The entire installation process consists of a disk format, followed by debootstrap, followed by running propellor in the target system. This also means that the installed system includes a propellor config file which now describes the properties of the system as installed (so can be edited to tweak the installation, or reused as starting point for next installation).

  • Users who want to configure installation in any way write down properties of system using a simple propellor config file. I suppose some people still use more than one partiton or gnome or some such customization, so they'd use:

main :: IO
main = Installer.main
    & Installer.partition First "/boot" Ext3 (MiB 256)
    & Installer.partition Next "/" Ext4 (GiB 5)
    & Installer.partition Next "/home" Ext4 FreeSpace
    & Installer.grubBoots "hd0"
    & os (System (Debian Stable) "amd64")
    & Apt.stdSourcesList
    & Apt.installed ["task-gnome-desktop"]
  • The installation system is itself built using propellor. A free feature given the above design, so basically all it will take to build an installation iso is this code:
main :: IO
main = Installer.main
    & Installer.target CdImage "installer.iso"
    & os (System (Debian Stable) "amd64")
    & Apt.stdSourcesList
    & Apt.installed ["task-xfce-desktop", "ghc", "propellor"]
    & User.autoLogin "root"
    & User.loginStarts "propellor --installer"
  • Propellor has a nice display of what it's doing so there is no freaking progress bar.

Well, now I know where propellor might end up if I felt like spending a month and adding a few thousand lines of code to it.

propellor-driven DNS and backups

Took a while to get here, but Propellor 0.4.0 can deploy DNS servers and I just had it deploy mine. Including generating DNS zone files.

Configuration is dead simple, as far as DNS goes:

     & alias "ns1.example.com"
        & Dns.secondary hosts "joeyh.name"
                & Dns.primary hosts "example.com"
                        (Dns.mkSOA "ns1.example.com" 100)
                        [ (RootDomain, NS $ AbsDomain "ns1.example.com")
            , (RootDomain, NS $ AbsDomain "ns2.example.com")
                        ]

The awesome thing is that propellor fills in all the other information in the zone file by looking at the properties of the hosts it knows about.

 , host "blue.example.com"
        & ipv4 "192.168.1.1"
        & ipv6 "fe80::26fd:52ff:feea:2294"

        & alias "example.com"
        & alias "www.example.com"
        & alias "example.museum"
        & Docker.docked hosts "webserver"
            `requres` backedup "/var/www"
        
        & alias "ns2.example.com"
        & Dns.secondary hosts "example.com"

When it sees this host, Propellor adds its IP addresses to the example.com DNS zone file, for both its main hostname ("blue.example.com"), and also its relevant aliases. (The .museum alias would go into a different zone file.)

Multiple hosts can define the same alias, and then you automaticlly get round-robin DNS.

The web server part of of the blue.example.com config can be cut and pasted to another host in order to move its web server to the other host, including updating the DNS. That's really all there is to is, just cut, paste, and commit!

I'm quite happy with how that worked out. And curious if Puppet etc have anything similar.


One tricky part of this was how to ensure that the serial number automtically updates when changes are made. The way this is handled is Propellor starts with a base serial number (100 in the example above), and then it adds to it the number of commits in its git repository. The zone file is only updated when something in it besides the serial number needs to change.

The result is nice small serial numbers that don't risk overflowing the (so 90's) 32 bit limit, and will be consistent even if the configuration had Propellor setting up multiple independent master DNS servers for the same domain.


Another recent feature in Propellor is that it can use Obnam to back up a directory. With the awesome feature that if the backed up directory is empty/missing, Propellor will automcatically restore it from the backup.

Here's how the backedup property used in the example above might be implemented:

backedup :: FilePath -> Property
backedup dir = Obnam.backup dir daily
    [ "--repository=sftp://rsync.example.com/~/webserver.obnam"
    ] Obnam.OnlyClient
    `requires` Ssh.keyImported SshRsa "root"
    `requires` Ssh.knownHost hosts "rsync.example.com" "root"
    `requires` Gpg.keyImported "1B169BE1" "root"

Notice that the Ssh.knownHost makes root trust the ssh host key belonging to rsync.example.com. So Propellor needs to be told what that host key is, like so:

 , host "rsync.example.com"
        & ipv4 "192.168.1.4"
        & sshPubKey "ssh-rsa blahblahblah"

Which of course ties back into the DNS and gets this hostname set in it. But also, the ssh public key is available for this host and visible to the DNS zone file generator, and that could also be set in the DNS, in a SSHFP record. I haven't gotten around to implementing that, but hope at some point to make Propellor support DNSSEC, and then this will all combine even more nicely.


By the way, Propellor is now up to 3 thousand lines of code (not including Utility library). In 20 days, as a 10% time side project.

propellor introspection for DNS

In just released Propellor 0.3.0, I've improved improved Propellor's config file DSL significantly. Now properties can set attributes of a host, that can be looked up by its other properties, using a Reader monad.

This saves needing to repeat yourself:

hosts = [ host "orca.kitenet.net"
        & stdSourcesList Unstable
        & Hostname.sane -- uses hostname from above

And it simplifies docker setup, with no longer a need to differentiate between properties that configure docker vs properties of the container:

 -- A generic webserver in a Docker container.
    , Docker.container "webserver" "joeyh/debian-unstable"
        & Docker.publish "80:80"
        & Docker.volume "/var/www:/var/www"
        & Apt.serviceInstalledRunning "apache2"

But the really useful thing is, it allows automating DNS zone file creation, using attributes of hosts that are set and used alongside their other properties:

hosts =
    [ host "clam.kitenet.net"
        & ipv4 "10.1.1.1"

        & cname "openid.kitenet.net"
        & Docker.docked hosts "openid-provider"

        & cname "ancient.kitenet.net"
        & Docker.docked hosts "ancient-kitenet"
    , host "diatom.kitenet.net"
        & Dns.primary "kitenet.net" hosts
    ]

Notice that hosts is passed into Dns.primary, inside the definition of hosts! Tying the knot like this is a fun haskell laziness trick. :)

Now I just need to write a little function to look over the hosts and generate a zone file from their hostname, cname, and address attributes:

extractZoneFile :: Domain -> [Host] -> ZoneFile
extractZoneFile = gen . map hostAttr
  where gen = -- TODO

The eventual plan is that the cname property won't be defined as a property of the host, but of the container running inside it. Then I'll be able to cut-n-paste move docker containers between hosts, or duplicate the same container onto several hosts to deal with load, and propellor will provision them, and update the zone file appropriately.


Also, Chris Webber had suggested that Propellor be able to separate values from properties, so that eg, a web wizard could configure the values easily. I think this gets it much of the way there. All that's left to do is two easy functions:

overrideAttrsFromJSON :: Host -> JSON -> Host

exportJSONAttrs :: Host -> JSON

With these, propellor's configuration could be adjusted at run time using JSON from a file or other source. For example, here's a containerized webserver that publishes a directory from the external host, as configured by JSON that it exports:

demo :: Host
demo = Docker.container "webserver" "joeyh/debian-unstable"
    & Docker.publish "80:80"
    & dir_to_publish "/home/mywebsite" -- dummy default
    & Docker.volume (getAttr dir_to_publish ++":/var/www")
    & Apt.serviceInstalledRunning "apache2"

main = do
    json <- readJSON "my.json"
    let demo' = overrideAttrsFromJSON demo
    writeJSON "my.json" (exportJSONAttrs demo')
    defaultMain [demo']
propellor type-safe reversions

Propellor ensures that a list of properties about a system are satisfied. But requirements change, and so you might want to revert a property that had been set up before.

For example, I had a system with a webserver container:

Docker.docked container hostname "webserver"

I don't want a web server there any more. Rather than having a separate property to stop it, wouldn't it be nice to be able to say:

revert (Docker.docked container hostname "webserver")

I've now gotten this working. The really fun part is, some properies support reversion, but other properties certianly do not. Maybe the code to revert them is not worth writing, or maybe the property does something that cannot be reverted.

For example, Docker.garbageCollected is a property that makes sure there are no unused docker images wasting disk space. It can't be reverted. Nor can my personal standardSystem Unstable property, which amoung other things upgrades the system to unstable and sets up my home directory..

I found a way to make Propellor statically check if a property can be reverted at compile time. So revert Docker.garbageCollected will fail to type check!

The tricky part about implementing this is that the user configures Propellor with a list of properties. But now there are two distinct types of properties, revertable ones and non-revertable ones. And Haskell does not support heterogeneous lists..

My solution to this is a typeclass and some syntactic sugar operators. To build a list of properties, with individual elements that might be revertable, and others not:

 props
        & standardSystem Unstable
        & revert (Docker.docked container hostname "webserver")
        & Docker.docked container hostname "amd64-git-annex-builder"
        & Docker.garbageCollected
adding docker support to propellor

Propellor development is churning away! (And leaving no few puns in its wake..)

Now it supports secure handling of private data like passwords (only the host that owns it can see it), and fully end-to-end secured deployment via gpg signed and verified commits.

And, I've just gotten support for Docker to build. Probably not quite work, but it should only be a few bugs away at this point.

Here's how to deploy a dockerized webserver with propellor:

host hostname@"clam.kitenet.net" = Just
    [ Docker.configured
    , File.dirExists "/var/www"
    , Docker.hasContainer hostname "webserver" container
    ]

container _ "webserver" = Just $ Docker.containerFromImage "joeyh/debian-unstable"
        [ Docker.publish "80:80"
        , Docker.volume "/var/www:/var/www"
        , Docker.inside
            [ serviceRunning "apache2"
                `requires` Apt.installed ["apache2"]
            ]
        ]

Docker containers are set up using Properties too, just like regular hosts, but their Properties are run inside the container.

That means that, if I change the web server port above, Propellor will notice the container config is out of date, and stop the container, commit an image based on it, and quickly use that to bring up a new container with the new configuration.

If I change the web server to say, lighttpd, Propellor will run inside the container, and notice that it needs to install lighttpd to satisfy the new property, and so will update the container without needing to take it down.

Adding all this behavior took only 253 lines of code, and none of it impacts the core of Propellor at all; it's all in Propellor.Property.Docker. (Well, I did need another hundred lines to write a daemon that runs inside the container and reads commands to run over a named pipe... Docker makes running ad-hoc commands inside a container a PITA.)

So, I think that this vindicates the approach of making the configuration of Propellor be a list of Properties, which can be constructed by abitrarily interesting Haskell code. I didn't design Propellor to support containers, but it was easy to find a way to express them as shown above.

Compare that with how Puppet supports Docker: http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/use/puppet/

docker::run { 'helloworld':
  image        => 'ubuntu',
  command      => '/bin/sh -c "while true; do echo hello world; sleep 1; done"',
  ports        => ['4444', '4555'],
...

All puppet manages is running the image and a simple static command inside it. All the complexities that puppet provides for configuring servers cannot easily be brought to bear inside the container, and a large reason for that is, I think, that its configuration file is just not expressive enough.

introducing propellor

Whups, I seem to have built a configuration management system this evening!

Propellor has similar goals to chef or puppet or ansible, but with an approach much more like slaughter. Except it's configured by writing Haskell code.

The name is because propellor ensures that a system is configured with the desired PROPerties, and also because it kind of pulls system configuration along after it. And you may not want to stand too close.

Disclaimer: I'm not really a sysadmin, except for on the scale of "diffuse administration of every Debian machine on planet earth or nearby", and so I don't really understand configuration management. (Well, I did write debconf, which claims to be the "Debian Configuration Management system".. But I didn't understand configuration management back then either.)

So, propellor makes some perhaps wacky choices. The least of these is that it's built from a git repository that any (theoretical) other users will fork and modify; a cron job can re-make it from time to time and pull down configuration changes, or something can be run to push changes.

A really simple configuration for a Tor bridge server using propellor looks something like this:

main = ensureProperties
    [ Apt.stdSourcesList Apt.Stable `onChange` Apt.upgrade
    , Apt.removed ["exim4"] `onChange` Apt.autoRemove
    , Hostname.set "bridget"
    , Ssh.uniqueHostKeys
    , Tor.isBridge
    ]

Since it's just haskell code, it's "easy" to refactor out common configurations for classes of servers, etc. Or perhaps integrate reclass? I don't know. I'm happy with just pure functions and type-safe refactorings of my configs, I think.

Properties are also written in Haskell of course. This one ensures that all the packages in a list are installed.

installed :: [Package] -> Property
installed ps = check (isInstallable ps) go
  where
        go = runApt $ [Param "-y", Param "install"] ++ map Param ps

Here's one that ensures the hostname is set to the desired value, which shows how to specify content for a file, and also how to run another action if a change needed to be made to satisfy a property.

set :: HostName -> Property
set hostname = "/etc/hostname" `File.hasContent` [hostname]
        `onChange` cmdProperty "hostname" [Param hostname]

Here's part of a custom one that I use to check out a user's home directory from git. Shows how to make a property require that some other property is satisfied first, and how to test if a property has already been satisfied.

installedFor :: UserName -> Property
installedFor user = check (not <$> hasGitDir user) $
        Property ("githome " ++ user) (go =<< homedir user)
                    `requires` Apt.installed ["git", "myrepos"]
  where
    go ... -- 12 lines elided

I'm about 37% happy with the overall approach to listing properties and combining properties into larger properties etc. I think that some unifying insight is missing -- perhaps there should be a Property monad? But as long as it yields a list of properties, any smarter thing should be able to be built on top of this.

Propellor is 564 lines of code, including 25 or so built-in properties like the examples above. It took around 4 hours to build.

I'm pretty sure it was easier to write it than it would have been to look into ansible and salt and slaughter (and also liw's human-readable configuration language whose name I've forgotten) in enough detail to pick one, and learn how its configuration worked, and warp it into something close to how I wanted this to work.

I think that's interesting.. It's partly about NIH and I-want-everything-in-Haskell, but it's also about a complicated system that is a lot of things to a lot of people -- of the kind I see when I look at ansible -- vs the tools and experience to build just the thing you want without the cruft. Nice to have the latter!