Hello Bruce, Since I am having build issues with master branch I am back to rocko branch.
With rocko branch when I use –p option with Docker, I was getting following error “iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.” root@genericx86-64:~# docker run -itd --name svo -p 10000:8080 svo supervisord -n 52416b288a255361de6e0e09e78055627d898e44cc6b9839430bb2e48b5c5324 docker: Error response from daemon: driver failed programming external connectivity on endpoint svo (b5a9bed9b9825027ce02fa603b5daa3d4220953404f8d3efbda4ab5f0ac49138): (iptables failed: iptables --wait -t nat -A DOCKER -p tcp -d 0/0 --dport 10000 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.17.0.2:8080 ! -i docker0: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name. (exit status 1)). This was due to missing LKM, xt_nat & x_tables. With this bundled in the final iso I could solve above problem. Now I am hitting another error Below is the complete list of modules root@genericx86-64:/mnt# lsmod Module Size Used by xt_tcpudp 16384 0 ipt_MASQUERADE 16384 1 nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4 16384 1 ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat 16384 1 nf_conntrack_ipv4 16384 3 nf_defrag_ipv4 16384 1 nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_nat_ipv4 16384 1 iptable_nat iptable_filter 16384 1 ip_tables 24576 2 iptable_filter,iptable_nat bridge 106496 0 stp 16384 1 bridge llc 16384 2 bridge,stp xt_nat 16384 0 nf_nat 24576 3 xt_nat,nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4,nf_nat_ipv4 xt_conntrack 16384 1 nf_conntrack 86016 7 xt_nat,nf_conntrack_ipv4,ipt_MASQUERADE,nf_nat_masquerade_ipv4,xt_conntrack,nf_nat_ipv4,nf_nat libcrc32c 16384 2 nf_conntrack,nf_nat xt_addrtype 16384 2 x_tables 28672 7 xt_nat,ip_tables,iptable_filter,xt_tcpudp,ipt_MASQUERADE,xt_addrtype,xt_conntrack root@genericx86-64:/mnt# Regards, Shakthi On 09/04/18, 7:49 PM, "Bruce Ashfield" <[email protected]> wrote: Sure, but none of them are docker. Bruce On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Bruce, > > I see pkg_postinst_${PN}() are part of below recipes…. > > TPRADEEP-M-91HW:meta-virtualization tpradeep$ grep -r postinst * > recipes-containers/singularity/singularity_git.bb:pkg_postinst_${PN}() { > recipes-containers/lxc/lxc_2.0.8.bb:pkg_postinst_${PN}() { > recipes-containers/lxc/lxc_2.0.8.bb:pkg_postinst_${PN}-networking() { > recipes-extended/xen/xen.inc:pkg_postinst_${PN}-volatiles() { > recipes-extended/libvirt/libvirt_1.3.5.bb:pkg_postinst_libvirt() { > recipes-networking/openvswitch/openvswitch.inc:# rdeps. E.g. ovs-pki calls sed in the postinstall. sed may be > recipes-networking/openvswitch/openvswitch.inc:pkg_postinst_${PN}-pki () { > recipes-networking/openvswitch/openvswitch.inc:pkg_postinst_${PN}-testcontroller () { > > Regards, > Shakthi > > On 09/04/18, 6:47 PM, "Bruce Ashfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Bruce, > > > > Moved to master branch of Yocto. When I build I am getting below error. What does this mean? > > There were changes made to the way that postinstall scripts were run > in the January > timeframe, > > i.e.: > > commit 7bc55b29609765904af9f330600229e96cc044cf > Author: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Jan 29 14:01:32 2018 +0200 > > meta/lib/oe/package_manager.py: deprecate 'exit 1' as a way to > defer to first boot > > 'exit 1' is not optimal for two reasons: > > 1) Code is hard to read; it is not obvious that it means 'defer > what follows to first boot'. > 2) Worse, this hides actual errors in the scriptlets; there is no > difference between scriptlet > failing because it's intended to be run on target and scriptlet > failing because there's a bug or > a regression somewhere. > > The new, supported way is to place the code that has to run on > target into pkg_postinst_ontarget(), > or, if a more fine-tuned control is required, call > 'postinst-intercepts defer_to_first_boot' from > pkg_postinst() to explicitly request deferral to first boot. > > (From OE-Core rev: d12cf56e9ff2a4f13dfbef9290ea5647b52b3f6d) > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > > :100644 100644 2a07f0e39ad6... f7e013437c91... M > meta/lib/oe/package_manager.py > > commit 6ca669105ff7f405e85142d1aa5375a8430c9606 > Author: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Jan 29 14:01:31 2018 +0200 > > package.bbclass: add support for pkg_postinst_ontarget() > > This function is a convenient and more readable shortcut for situations > when the postinst code always needs to run on target. All commands that > cannot be executed during cross-install and can only be run on target > should go into this function. They will only be executed on first boot > (if package was cross-installed) or immediately during package installation > on target. > > Plain pkg_postinst() works as before: it is run during cross-install time, > it can contain a request to defer to first boot, and it is also run > during package installation on target. > > Also fix the oeqa test for this functionality to use the new function > where appropriate. > > (From OE-Core rev: 229f4e975fb6957f44b5c56735fd6d58564098d7) > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > > :100644 100644 112aa08c80f8... d4bab6dcc228... M > meta-selftest/recipes-test/postinst/postinst_1.0.bb > :100644 100644 7dc759699f4b... 6a7f35a3e787... M > meta/classes/package.bbclass > > ------- > > But you shouldn't be getting that warning with docker, since it doesn't > have a pkg_postinst_${PN}(), or related element in the recipe. > > So something in your build is adding that postinstall action, that isn't > part of the meta-virtualization layer. > > Bruce > > > > > > Initialising tasks: 100% |######################################################################################################################################################| Time: 0:00:04 > > NOTE: Executing SetScene Tasks > > NOTE: Executing RunQueue Tasks > > WARNING: core-image-full-cmdline-1.0-r0 do_rootfs: Intentionally failing postinstall scriptlets of ['docker'] to defer them to first boot is deprecated. Please place them into pkg_postinst_ontarget_${PN} (). > > If deferring to first boot wasn't the intent, then scriptlet failure may mean an issue in the recipe, or a regression elsewhere. > > Details of the failure are in /workdir/poky/build/tmp/work/genericx86_64-poky-linux/core-image-full-cmdline/1.0-r0/temp/log.do_rootfs. > > WARNING: core-image-full-cmdline-1.0-r0 do_rootfs: [log_check] core-image-full-cmdline: found 2 warning messages in the logfile: > > [log_check] warning: %post(docker-18.03.0+git708b068d3095c6a6be939eb2da78c921d2e945e2-r0.core2_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 1 > > [log_check] WARNING: Intentionally failing postinstall scriptlets of ['docker'] to defer them to first boot is deprecated. Please place them into pkg_postinst_ontarget_${PN} (). > > > > Regards, > > Shakthi > > > > On 06/04/18, 1:09 AM, "Bruce Ashfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Bruce, > > > > > > I pulled master branch from git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky but build fails > > > > > > When I run "bitbake core-image-full-cmdline" or "bitbake core-image-minimal" I get following error > > > > > > ERROR: Task (/nobackup/tpradeep/playground/yocto/poky/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_4.15.7.bb:do_install) failed with exit code '1' > > > ERROR: Task (/nobackup/tpradeep/playground/yocto/poky/meta/recipes-devtools/autoconf-archive/autoconf-archive_2016.09.16.bb:do_install) failed with exit code '1' > > > > > > Any idea why? > > > > Nope. But the errors are unrelated to the changes in meta-virt. If the > > issue persists, asking on the oe-core list is a better bet. > > I'd suggest that you rm -rf tmp, and start the build again. > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Shakthi > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 7:44 PM > > > To: Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [meta-virtualization] RFT/FYI: docker/containerd/runc uprevs pushed to master > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hello Bruce, > > >> > > >> I am actually working on a repo from Third Party. So here things are little outdated. > > >> > > >> I found some info from http://git.yoctoproject.org > > >> > > >> I am currently using Docker 1.13.0 which was committed on 2017-01-20 > > >> > > >> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-virtualization/commit/r > > >> ecipes-containers/docker?id=0b631bf01487d3d1be0c91ea7749168fb3c47dcb > > >> > > >> I need to migrate to 18.03.0 which you committed 3 days ago > > >> > > >> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-virtualization/commit/r > > >> ecipes-containers/docker?id=a5074cecf18faea1a325c8ac9220d2df41250af5 > > >> > > >> If I take recipe from above commit and update my workspace, will all the dependencies migrate to latest automatically? > > > > > > Nope. You'd need to pull in all the updates that I recently pushed for the dependencies, or you'll end up with runtime errors. > > > Also note, that due to the different go versions and build infrastructure in oe-core, there's no guarantee that those new recipes will build properly on an older baseline. > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Shakthi > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 6:46 PM > > >> To: Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> > > >> Cc: [email protected] > > >> Subject: Re: [meta-virtualization] RFT/FYI: docker/containerd/runc > > >> uprevs pushed to master > > >> > > >> root@cube-server:~# docker --version > > >> Docker version 18.03.0, build 0f1bb353423e > > >> > > >> If you are building meta-virt master, the update should happen automatically since the PV of the updated recipe is higher than the old one. All the dependencies will follow after that. > > >> > > >> Bruce > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Hello Bruce, > > >>> > > >>> Which version of Docker are you running. > > >>> > > >>> I just noticed I am running Docker 1.13.1 which is too old. > > >>> > > >>> How do I migrate to latest version of Docker & also corresponding dependencies. > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Shakthi > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:[email protected]] > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 6:45 PM > > >>> To: Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> > > >>> Cc: [email protected] > > >>> Subject: Re: [meta-virtualization] RFT/FYI: docker/containerd/runc > > >>> uprevs pushed to master > > >>> > > >>> Excellent news. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, everything is in master of meta-virtualization now. That way it will have time to soak a bit before the upcoming release. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Bruce > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Hello Bruce, > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes I was missing the bbappend for kernel config. Got it working after I wrote the mail to you. > > >>>> > > >>>> Are your changes committed to git repo? Is it in the master branch of Yocto? > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Shakthi > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:[email protected]] > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:57 PM > > >>>> To: Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> > > >>>> Cc: [email protected] > > >>>> Subject: Re: [meta-virtualization] RFT/FYI: docker/containerd/runc > > >>>> uprevs pushed to master > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Shakthi Pradeep (tpradeep) <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> Hello Bruce, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Timing is Perfect !!! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I am currently trying to get Docker CE to work with Yocto. I could > > >>>>> include the Docker executable in ISO but when I run it I get some errors. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> When I boot the image looks like Docker service start is failing > > >>>>> due to missing kernel modules. Please refer attached screenshot and > > >>>>> below error log. > > >>>> > > >>>> Do you have a bbappend for your 4.8 kernel that adds the docker configuration fragments ? > > >>>> > > >>>> That's the most likely reason for the issues. > > >>>> > > >>>> I was able to run a whole suite of tests against 4.12, 4.14 and 4.15 so those kernels + fragments are known to work. > > >>>> > > >>>> Bruce > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * docker.service - Docker Application Container Engine > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/docker.service; enabled; > > >>>>> vendor > > >>>>> preset: enabled) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Tue 2018-04-03 13:17:51 > > >>>>> UTC; 17min ago > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Docs: https://docs.docker.com > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Process: 317 ExecStart=/usr/bin/dockerd -H fd:// (code=exited, > > >>>>> status=1/FAILURE) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Main PID: 317 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: > > >>>>> time="2018-04-03T13:17:51.035178755Z" level=warning msg="Running > > >>>>> modprobe xt_conntrack failed with message: `modprobe: WARNING: > > >>>>> Module xt_conntrack not found in directory > > >>>>> /lib/modules/4.8.24-WR9.0.0.10_standard`, error: exit status 1" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: > > >>>>> time="2018-04-03T13:17:51.040727372Z" level=info msg="Firewalld running: > > >>>>> false" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: > > >>>>> time="2018-04-03T13:17:51.170575344Z" level=warning msg="Could not > > >>>>> load necessary modules for IPSEC rules: Running modprobe xfrm_user > > >>>>> failed with > > >>>>> message: `modprobe: WARNING: Module xfrm_user not found in > > >>>>> directory /lib/modules/4.8.24-WR9.0.0.10_standard`, error: exit status 1" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: > > >>>>> time="2018-04-03T13:17:51.172397913Z" level=info msg="Default > > >>>>> bridge > > >>>>> (docker0) is assigned with an IP address 172.17.0.0/16. Daemon > > >>>>> option --bip can be used to set a preferred IP address" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: Error starting daemon: > > >>>>> Error initializing network controller: Error creating default "bridge" network: > > >>>>> Failed to Setup IP tables: Unable to enable ACCEPT INCOMING rule: > > >>>>> (iptables > > >>>>> failed: iptables --wait -I FORWARD -o docker0 -m conntrack > > >>>>> --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 dockerd[317]: (exit status 1)) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 systemd[1]: docker.service: Main > > >>>>> process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 systemd[1]: Failed to start Docker > > >>>>> Application Container Engine. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 systemd[1]: docker.service: Unit > > >>>>> entered failed state. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apr 03 13:17:51 intel-x86-64 systemd[1]: docker.service: Failed > > >>>>> with result 'exit-code'. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Shakthi > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>>> From: [email protected] > > >>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > >>>>> Bruce Ashfield > > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:44 AM > > >>>>> To: [email protected] > > >>>>> Subject: [meta-virtualization] RFT/FYI: docker/containerd/runc > > >>>>> uprevs pushed to master > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> After spending a few days de-tangling the > > >>>>> moby/docker/runc/containerd and oe-core go infrastructure changes, > > >>>>> I was able to run docker/runc/containerd through a system/stress test and everything seems to be working. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> There were a few regressions that I worked through, as well as > > >>>>> build/packaging changes, but I'm no longer seeing any issues and > > >>>>> all the patches/functionality have been carried forward. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> One thing of note is that the docker and open containers containerd > > >>>>> split/fork is no longer an issue, so I've modified the default to > > >>>>> be the opencontainers variant. Similarly, the docker and > > >>>>> opencontainers runc are very similar. I've kept both variants of > > >>>>> both recipes for now, since I'd like to track things for a bit > > >>>>> longer before declaring the split unnecessary. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Also for those that care, I created a reference docker-ce recipe > > >>>>> that tracks the docker-ce repo versus the components themselves. > > >>>>> Right now it is reference only, since it needs a bit more work, but > > >>>>> I wanted to get it out there, in case someone really cares about > > >>>>> docker-ce (I don't really, but someone might!). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Summary: I just pushed the following changes to master: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> d7d310ae4113 meta-virt: prefer containerd-opencontainers > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 935e3d969ef1 containerd: uprev to v1.0.2 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> f5fbfa8ac4db docker-ce: introduce reference recipe/build > > >>>>> > > >>>>> a5074cecf18f docker: uprev to 18.03.0 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> e3d960f4fcd9 runc: uprev to 1.0.0-rc5 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> If anyone sees regressions, build or architecture issues .. report > > >>>>> them to me (and the list) and we'll get them fixed up. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Bruce > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness > > >>>>> await thee at its end" > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> meta-virtualization mailing list > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> > > >>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" > > > > > > > > -- > > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await > > thee at its end" > > > > > > > > -- > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await > thee at its end" > > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" -- _______________________________________________ meta-virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization
