How to replace binary file in /bin inside a Linux container
I want to make some weird container, one of my tasks were to replace the uname
binary.
I coded it:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("This is a fake unamen");
return 0;
}
Compiled it:
gcc uname.c -o uname
it works fine when I run it on my ubuntu.
I created a Dockerfile
and copied it to the image:
cat > Dockerfile <<EOF
FROM alpine:latest
RUN rm /bin/uname
COPY uname /bin/
ENTRYPOINT sh;
WORKDIR /home
EOF
And build it docker build -t myimage -f Dockerfile .
when I run the image:
docker run -it --rm myimage
The file exist but when I try to run it, it writes it doesn't exist:
/home # uname
sh: uname: not found
/home # ls -lia uname
ls: uname: No such file or directory
/home # ls -lia /bin/uname
35 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600 Jan 29 13:27 /bin/uname
docker container
add a comment |
I want to make some weird container, one of my tasks were to replace the uname
binary.
I coded it:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("This is a fake unamen");
return 0;
}
Compiled it:
gcc uname.c -o uname
it works fine when I run it on my ubuntu.
I created a Dockerfile
and copied it to the image:
cat > Dockerfile <<EOF
FROM alpine:latest
RUN rm /bin/uname
COPY uname /bin/
ENTRYPOINT sh;
WORKDIR /home
EOF
And build it docker build -t myimage -f Dockerfile .
when I run the image:
docker run -it --rm myimage
The file exist but when I try to run it, it writes it doesn't exist:
/home # uname
sh: uname: not found
/home # ls -lia uname
ls: uname: No such file or directory
/home # ls -lia /bin/uname
35 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600 Jan 29 13:27 /bin/uname
docker container
add a comment |
I want to make some weird container, one of my tasks were to replace the uname
binary.
I coded it:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("This is a fake unamen");
return 0;
}
Compiled it:
gcc uname.c -o uname
it works fine when I run it on my ubuntu.
I created a Dockerfile
and copied it to the image:
cat > Dockerfile <<EOF
FROM alpine:latest
RUN rm /bin/uname
COPY uname /bin/
ENTRYPOINT sh;
WORKDIR /home
EOF
And build it docker build -t myimage -f Dockerfile .
when I run the image:
docker run -it --rm myimage
The file exist but when I try to run it, it writes it doesn't exist:
/home # uname
sh: uname: not found
/home # ls -lia uname
ls: uname: No such file or directory
/home # ls -lia /bin/uname
35 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600 Jan 29 13:27 /bin/uname
docker container
I want to make some weird container, one of my tasks were to replace the uname
binary.
I coded it:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
printf("This is a fake unamen");
return 0;
}
Compiled it:
gcc uname.c -o uname
it works fine when I run it on my ubuntu.
I created a Dockerfile
and copied it to the image:
cat > Dockerfile <<EOF
FROM alpine:latest
RUN rm /bin/uname
COPY uname /bin/
ENTRYPOINT sh;
WORKDIR /home
EOF
And build it docker build -t myimage -f Dockerfile .
when I run the image:
docker run -it --rm myimage
The file exist but when I try to run it, it writes it doesn't exist:
/home # uname
sh: uname: not found
/home # ls -lia uname
ls: uname: No such file or directory
/home # ls -lia /bin/uname
35 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8600 Jan 29 13:27 /bin/uname
docker container
docker container
asked Jan 29 at 13:51
E235E235
1274
1274
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The problem is that you build your binary against glibc
(as you are using Ubuntu), but then run it on Alpine (which uses musl
instead).
When you build the binary, some metadata is hardcoded into it, specifically, the interpreter (dynamic linker) location. During the binary execution the kernel uses this interpreter to load the binary and all of its runtime dependencies. When you build against glibc
, the binary requests the glibc
's interpreter (something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
):
$ readelf -l /bin/uname
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
but there is no such interpreter under Alpine. Alpine has /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
instead, and all its binaries are built so that they request exactly this interpreter:
# readelf -l /bin/busybox
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1]
So, when you build your uname
in Ubuntu and then run it in Alpine, the kernel is unable to find the interpreter, thus it returns "not found".
The interesting point is that you may invoke the interpreter manually and this may work if the problem is only in the interpreter:
# /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 /bin/uname
This is a fake uname
But this, of course, is only for troubleshooting.
So, what to do?
Your options are either statically link your binary (thus making the interpreter and all shared libraries unneeded so that the kernel may load and run the binary on its own):
gcc uname.c -static -o uname
or build it under Alpine (maybe try Docker's multistage builds? I would recommend this approach as in this case you explicitly declare your intention and show that you build your custom binary in Alpine to replace the original Alpine's one).
The-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !
– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497455%2fhow-to-replace-binary-file-in-bin-inside-a-linux-container%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The problem is that you build your binary against glibc
(as you are using Ubuntu), but then run it on Alpine (which uses musl
instead).
When you build the binary, some metadata is hardcoded into it, specifically, the interpreter (dynamic linker) location. During the binary execution the kernel uses this interpreter to load the binary and all of its runtime dependencies. When you build against glibc
, the binary requests the glibc
's interpreter (something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
):
$ readelf -l /bin/uname
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
but there is no such interpreter under Alpine. Alpine has /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
instead, and all its binaries are built so that they request exactly this interpreter:
# readelf -l /bin/busybox
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1]
So, when you build your uname
in Ubuntu and then run it in Alpine, the kernel is unable to find the interpreter, thus it returns "not found".
The interesting point is that you may invoke the interpreter manually and this may work if the problem is only in the interpreter:
# /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 /bin/uname
This is a fake uname
But this, of course, is only for troubleshooting.
So, what to do?
Your options are either statically link your binary (thus making the interpreter and all shared libraries unneeded so that the kernel may load and run the binary on its own):
gcc uname.c -static -o uname
or build it under Alpine (maybe try Docker's multistage builds? I would recommend this approach as in this case you explicitly declare your intention and show that you build your custom binary in Alpine to replace the original Alpine's one).
The-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !
– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
add a comment |
The problem is that you build your binary against glibc
(as you are using Ubuntu), but then run it on Alpine (which uses musl
instead).
When you build the binary, some metadata is hardcoded into it, specifically, the interpreter (dynamic linker) location. During the binary execution the kernel uses this interpreter to load the binary and all of its runtime dependencies. When you build against glibc
, the binary requests the glibc
's interpreter (something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
):
$ readelf -l /bin/uname
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
but there is no such interpreter under Alpine. Alpine has /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
instead, and all its binaries are built so that they request exactly this interpreter:
# readelf -l /bin/busybox
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1]
So, when you build your uname
in Ubuntu and then run it in Alpine, the kernel is unable to find the interpreter, thus it returns "not found".
The interesting point is that you may invoke the interpreter manually and this may work if the problem is only in the interpreter:
# /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 /bin/uname
This is a fake uname
But this, of course, is only for troubleshooting.
So, what to do?
Your options are either statically link your binary (thus making the interpreter and all shared libraries unneeded so that the kernel may load and run the binary on its own):
gcc uname.c -static -o uname
or build it under Alpine (maybe try Docker's multistage builds? I would recommend this approach as in this case you explicitly declare your intention and show that you build your custom binary in Alpine to replace the original Alpine's one).
The-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !
– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
add a comment |
The problem is that you build your binary against glibc
(as you are using Ubuntu), but then run it on Alpine (which uses musl
instead).
When you build the binary, some metadata is hardcoded into it, specifically, the interpreter (dynamic linker) location. During the binary execution the kernel uses this interpreter to load the binary and all of its runtime dependencies. When you build against glibc
, the binary requests the glibc
's interpreter (something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
):
$ readelf -l /bin/uname
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
but there is no such interpreter under Alpine. Alpine has /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
instead, and all its binaries are built so that they request exactly this interpreter:
# readelf -l /bin/busybox
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1]
So, when you build your uname
in Ubuntu and then run it in Alpine, the kernel is unable to find the interpreter, thus it returns "not found".
The interesting point is that you may invoke the interpreter manually and this may work if the problem is only in the interpreter:
# /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 /bin/uname
This is a fake uname
But this, of course, is only for troubleshooting.
So, what to do?
Your options are either statically link your binary (thus making the interpreter and all shared libraries unneeded so that the kernel may load and run the binary on its own):
gcc uname.c -static -o uname
or build it under Alpine (maybe try Docker's multistage builds? I would recommend this approach as in this case you explicitly declare your intention and show that you build your custom binary in Alpine to replace the original Alpine's one).
The problem is that you build your binary against glibc
(as you are using Ubuntu), but then run it on Alpine (which uses musl
instead).
When you build the binary, some metadata is hardcoded into it, specifically, the interpreter (dynamic linker) location. During the binary execution the kernel uses this interpreter to load the binary and all of its runtime dependencies. When you build against glibc
, the binary requests the glibc
's interpreter (something like /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
):
$ readelf -l /bin/uname
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2]
but there is no such interpreter under Alpine. Alpine has /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1
instead, and all its binaries are built so that they request exactly this interpreter:
# readelf -l /bin/busybox
<...>
[Requesting program interpreter: /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1]
So, when you build your uname
in Ubuntu and then run it in Alpine, the kernel is unable to find the interpreter, thus it returns "not found".
The interesting point is that you may invoke the interpreter manually and this may work if the problem is only in the interpreter:
# /lib/ld-musl-x86_64.so.1 /bin/uname
This is a fake uname
But this, of course, is only for troubleshooting.
So, what to do?
Your options are either statically link your binary (thus making the interpreter and all shared libraries unneeded so that the kernel may load and run the binary on its own):
gcc uname.c -static -o uname
or build it under Alpine (maybe try Docker's multistage builds? I would recommend this approach as in this case you explicitly declare your intention and show that you build your custom binary in Alpine to replace the original Alpine's one).
edited Jan 29 at 17:55
answered Jan 29 at 15:56
Danila KiverDanila Kiver
443212
443212
The-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !
– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
add a comment |
The-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !
– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
The
-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
The
-static
solved it. Thanks you for your informative answer !– E235
Jan 29 at 16:05
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497455%2fhow-to-replace-binary-file-in-bin-inside-a-linux-container%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown