EC2 instance: known Terraform limitations
Some things people ask the terraform-aws-modules/ec2-instance/aws module for
cannot be implemented by any module, in any registry. They are limits of
Terraform itself. This page collects the recurring ones for this module, says
plainly what causes each, gives the native workaround in full, and - where one
exists - shows the Operational Rule that removes the need for a fork.
Read the native option first
Every problem below names the workaround you can apply today without compliance.tf. Several of them are the right answer on their own. The rule is an alternative to maintaining a fork, not a replacement for a control AWS already offers you.
Terraform wants to replace my EC2 instance because the AMI changed
The configuration resolves the AMI through a data source with most_recent = true. When AWS publishes a new image, the data source returns a different id and Terraform plans to replace a running instance - usually at the least convenient moment.
Why Terraform cannot fix this
Terraform's model is that it owns every attribute it can see. When a controller, an autoscaler, a scanner, or a deployment pipeline writes to one of those attributes, Terraform reads the new value as drift and plans to put its own value back. Both systems are behaving correctly; they simply disagree about who owns the field.
The only mechanism Terraform offers for splitting ownership is ignore_changes, and that is a lifecycle argument, which brings the literal-value restriction above with it. A module cannot accept the list of attributes to ignore as an input, so a module consumer has no way to declare the split.
| Repository | Issue | Title |
|---|---|---|
| hashicorp/terraform | #27360 | A method to override configuration and meta arguments within a module |
| hashicorp/terraform | #24188 | Support for dynamic blocks and meta-arguments |
| hashicorp/terraform-provider-aws | #19583 | Provider produced inconsistent final plan / an invalid new value for .tags_all |
The native workaround
Pin the AMI id instead of resolving the newest one. An explicit id, or an SSM parameter you promote deliberately, removes the surprise entirely and is the right answer for anything long-lived.
Where the lookup has to stay dynamic, the native fix is ignore_changes = [ami] on the instance, which is a lifecycle argument. Fork this module and add the lifecycle block to the resource yourself. That works, and it is the honest answer - it is what module maintainers do when they need it. The cost is ongoing rather than one-off: the fork has to be re-synced with every upstream release, and each sync needs a review to confirm the block still lands on the resource it was meant for. A wrapper module does not avoid this, because the lifecycle block still has to sit inside the resource block, which is inside the module you did not write.
The rule that answers it
lifecycle_ignore_ami_changes adds the block for you, server-side, while
the module is being downloaded. What arrives in .terraform/modules/ is ordinary
HCL with this change already in it:
resource "aws_instance" "this" {
# ... the module's own configuration, unchanged ...
+
+ lifecycle {
+ ignore_changes = [ami, image_id]
+ }
}Nothing else about the module changes: same inputs, same outputs, same version. The full definition is published at lifecycle_ignore_ami_changes.
Using the maintained alternative
compliance.tf serves this module from a registry that applies the rules above
during terraform init. The change is the source line plus the rules you
want; the inputs and outputs are the upstream module's.
module "ec2_instance" {
source = "https://cis.compliance.tf/terraform-aws-modules/ec2-instance/aws?add_rules=lifecycle_ignore_ami_changes"
# ... the same inputs you pass today ...
}On a framework host you name the rules you want in ?add_rules=, on top of whatever
Baseline your organization has Enforced; on an organization host that
organization's configuration decides. A module compliance.tf builds for you
carries a compliancetf-manifest.json naming every rule the build received, each
with an outcome recording what it actually did, so the change is auditable
rather than implicit.
Before changing a source line, run it: the Rules Playground
opens on this module with these rules selected and shows the diff the registry
would serve, without an account. The Playground takes its list as ?rules=
because it previews rules on their own rather than against your Baseline; your
source line above keeps ?add_rules=, which adds to that Baseline instead of
replacing it.
Related
- Operational Rules - what rules are, and how they differ from compliance controls
- Operational Rule Definitions - the HCL of every selectable rule
- lifecycle_ignore_ami_changes - the rule page, with limits and failure modes
- Stop paying the Terraform fork tax - why forking a module to add a
lifecycleblock costs more than it looks - EC2 instance module reference - inputs, outputs, and the controls applied to it