Where are binaries of a program running inside a Docker container? - docker

I've deployed a container based on ubuntu:16.04
docker run -ti ubuntu:latest /bin/bash
I 've downloaded from apt nsnake , inside the /bin/Bash in the container, a game:
apt install nsnake
and I have not such game on my host.
Now I wanna know where nsnake's binaries are on host machine;
on host machine :
ps -e | grep nsnake
and then , taking PID:
file /proc/PID/exe
but instead of returning the file pointed from /proc/PID/exe , this last command gives me :
/proc/PID/exe: broken symbolic link to /usr/games/nsnake
So , the important question is :
is there a method to find the location of binaries of nsnake ?
Other interesting questions are :
why symlink is "broken " ?
if there is no reference to original bins inside the related /proc/PID/exe , how do the system know what code it has to run ?

Q. why symlink is "broken " ?
You are mixing the main pid namespace with the container's pid namespace. It is broken in your host, but it is not broken from the container's point of view.
PID namespace provides separation of processes. The PID Namespace removes the view of the system processes, and allows process ids to be reused including pid 1.
https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/run/
Do the same that you are doing in your host, but do it inside the container. You will see that the pid (process id) of nsnake is a different number. Inside your container the symbolic link is not broken:
# docker exec -it <container-id> file /proc/231/exe
/proc/231/exe: symbolic link to /usr/games/nsnake
(you will need to install file utility inside the container, apt-get install file, or just do ls -l /proc/PID/exe)
Docs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_namespaces#Process_ID_.28pid.29
Q. if there is no reference to original bins inside the related /proc/PID/exe , how do the system know what code it has to run ?
The process that is running containerized (in your example /bin/bash) sees its own filesystem that is mounted by docker for you:
# Inside the container
root#d0fb6fdea3b5:/# mount
overlay on / type overlay (rw,relatime,lowerdir=/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/4FPUTTI4XND27BPHH7FS4JKJ4V:/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/U65SX2N4JGA5X6TXGRJQERQWNX:/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/OEX7NG4TZRGXBBFSSQ7Q3FXC5R:/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/FXRLO27CABA4ZFNOFTOL2HFHP4:/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/KBEK646A7PRLHLWM6CVJRMXSEH:/var/lib/docker/overlay2/l/PSRBIMSE36LW2MZEOSMM3XDG2Y,upperdir=/var/lib/docker/overlay2/5b867408de3a3915bc5f257aecaf73193083b3c8cc84c5d642810a3eaaeef550/diff,workdir=/var/lib/docker/overlay2/5b867408de3a3915bc5f257aecaf73193083b3c8cc84c5d642810a3eaaeef550/work)
...
In this case the storage driver is "overlay2". The Linux Kernel receives from /bin/bash process the system call that asks for a fork execution of /usr/games/nsnake and as it's expected, it will look for that binary in the filesystem that the container process can see.

Related

Can a process in Docker container run a command in the host? [duplicate]

How to control host from docker container?
For example, how to execute copied to host bash script?
This answer is just a more detailed version of Bradford Medeiros's solution, which for me as well turned out to be the best answer, so credit goes to him.
In his answer, he explains WHAT to do (named pipes) but not exactly HOW to do it.
I have to admit I didn't know what named pipes were when I read his solution. So I struggled to implement it (while it's actually very simple), but I did succeed.
So the point of my answer is just detailing the commands you need to run in order to get it working, but again, credit goes to him.
PART 1 - Testing the named pipe concept without docker
On the main host, chose the folder where you want to put your named pipe file, for instance /path/to/pipe/ and a pipe name, for instance mypipe, and then run:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The pipe is created.
Type
ls -l /path/to/pipe/mypipe
And check the access rights start with "p", such as
prw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 mypipe
Now run:
tail -f /path/to/pipe/mypipe
The terminal is now waiting for data to be sent into this pipe
Now open another terminal window.
And then run:
echo "hello world" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Check the first terminal (the one with tail -f), it should display "hello world"
PART 2 - Run commands through the pipe
On the host container, instead of running tail -f which just outputs whatever is sent as input, run this command that will execute it as commands:
eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"
Then, from the other terminal, try running:
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/mypipe
Go back to the first terminal and you should see the result of the ls -l command.
PART 3 - Make it listen forever
You may have noticed that in the previous part, right after ls -l output is displayed, it stops listening for commands.
Instead of eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)", run:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done
(you can nohup that)
Now you can send unlimited number of commands one after the other, they will all be executed, not just the first one.
PART 4 - Make it work even when reboot happens
The only caveat is if the host has to reboot, the "while" loop will stop working.
To handle reboot, here what I've done:
Put the while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)"; done in a file called execpipe.sh with #!/bin/bash header
Don't forget to chmod +x it
Add it to crontab by running
crontab -e
And then adding
#reboot /path/to/execpipe.sh
At this point, test it: reboot your server, and when it's back up, echo some commands into the pipe and check if they are executed.
Of course, you aren't able to see the output of commands, so ls -l won't help, but touch somefile will help.
Another option is to modify the script to put the output in a file, such as:
while true; do eval "$(cat /path/to/pipe/mypipe)" &> /somepath/output.txt; done
Now you can run ls -l and the output (both stdout and stderr using &> in bash) should be in output.txt.
PART 5 - Make it work with docker
If you are using both docker compose and dockerfile like I do, here is what I've done:
Let's assume you want to mount the mypipe's parent folder as /hostpipe in your container
Add this:
VOLUME /hostpipe
in your dockerfile in order to create a mount point
Then add this:
volumes:
- /path/to/pipe:/hostpipe
in your docker compose file in order to mount /path/to/pipe as /hostpipe
Restart your docker containers.
PART 6 - Testing
Exec into your docker container:
docker exec -it <container> bash
Go into the mount folder and check you can see the pipe:
cd /hostpipe && ls -l
Now try running a command from within the container:
echo "touch this_file_was_created_on_main_host_from_a_container.txt" > /hostpipe/mypipe
And it should work!
WARNING: If you have an OSX (Mac OS) host and a Linux container, it won't work (explanation here https://stackoverflow.com/a/43474708/10018801 and issue here https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/483 ) because the pipe implementation is not the same, so what you write into the pipe from Linux can be read only by a Linux and what you write into the pipe from Mac OS can be read only by a Mac OS (this sentence might not be very accurate, but just be aware that a cross-platform issue exists).
For instance, when I run my docker setup in DEV from my Mac OS computer, the named pipe as explained above does not work. But in staging and production, I have Linux host and Linux containers, and it works perfectly.
PART 7 - Example from Node.JS container
Here is how I send a command from my Node.JS container to the main host and retrieve the output:
const pipePath = "/hostpipe/mypipe"
const outputPath = "/hostpipe/output.txt"
const commandToRun = "pwd && ls-l"
console.log("delete previous output")
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath)
console.log("writing to pipe...")
const wstream = fs.createWriteStream(pipePath)
wstream.write(commandToRun)
wstream.close()
console.log("waiting for output.txt...") //there are better ways to do that than setInterval
let timeout = 10000 //stop waiting after 10 seconds (something might be wrong)
const timeoutStart = Date.now()
const myLoop = setInterval(function () {
if (Date.now() - timeoutStart > timeout) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
console.log("timed out")
} else {
//if output.txt exists, read it
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) {
clearInterval(myLoop);
const data = fs.readFileSync(outputPath).toString()
if (fs.existsSync(outputPath)) fs.unlinkSync(outputPath) //delete the output file
console.log(data) //log the output of the command
}
}
}, 300);
Use a named pipe.
On the host OS, create a script to loop and read commands, and then you call eval on that.
Have the docker container read to that named pipe.
To be able to access the pipe, you need to mount it via a volume.
This is similar to the SSH mechanism (or a similar socket-based method), but restricts you properly to the host device, which is probably better. Plus you don't have to be passing around authentication information.
My only warning is to be cautious about why you are doing this. It's totally something to do if you want to create a method to self-upgrade with user input or whatever, but you probably don't want to call a command to get some config data, as the proper way would be to pass that in as args/volume into docker. Also, be cautious about the fact that you are evaling, so just give the permission model a thought.
Some of the other answers such as running a script. Under a volume won't work generically since they won't have access to the full system resources, but it might be more appropriate depending on your usage.
The solution I use is to connect to the host over SSH and execute the command like this:
ssh -l ${USERNAME} ${HOSTNAME} "${SCRIPT}"
UPDATE
As this answer keeps getting up votes, I would like to remind (and highly recommend), that the account which is being used to invoke the script should be an account with no permissions at all, but only executing that script as sudo (that can be done from sudoers file).
UPDATE: Named Pipes
The solution I suggested above was only the one I used while I was relatively new to Docker. Now in 2021 take a look on the answers that talk about Named Pipes. This seems to be a better solution.
However, nobody there mentioned anything about security. The script that will evaluate the commands sent through the pipe (the script that calls eval) must actually not use eval for the whole pipe output, but to handle specific cases and call the required commands according to the text sent, otherwise any command that can do anything can be sent through the pipe.
That REALLY depends on what you need that bash script to do!
For example, if the bash script just echoes some output, you could just do
docker run --rm -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
Another possibility is that you want the bash script to install some software- say the script to install docker-compose. you could do something like
docker run --rm -v /usr/bin:/usr/bin --privileged -v $(pwd)/mybashscript.sh:/mybashscript.sh ubuntu bash /mybashscript.sh
But at this point you're really getting into having to know intimately what the script is doing to allow the specific permissions it needs on your host from inside the container.
My laziness led me to find the easiest solution that wasn't published as an answer here.
It is based on the great article by luc juggery.
All you need to do in order to gain a full shell to your linux host from within your docker container is:
docker run --privileged --pid=host -it alpine:3.8 \
nsenter -t 1 -m -u -n -i sh
Explanation:
--privileged : grants additional permissions to the container, it allows the container to gain access to the devices of the host (/dev)
--pid=host : allows the containers to use the processes tree of the Docker host (the VM in which the Docker daemon is running)
nsenter utility: allows to run a process in existing namespaces (the building blocks that provide isolation to containers)
nsenter (-t 1 -m -u -n -i sh) allows to run the process sh in the same isolation context as the process with PID 1.
The whole command will then provide an interactive sh shell in the VM
This setup has major security implications and should be used with cautions (if any).
Write a simple server python server listening on a port (say 8080), bind the port -p 8080:8080 with the container, make a HTTP request to localhost:8080 to ask the python server running shell scripts with popen, run a curl or writing code to make a HTTP request curl -d '{"foo":"bar"}' localhost:8080
#!/usr/bin/python
from BaseHTTPServer import BaseHTTPRequestHandler,HTTPServer
import subprocess
import json
PORT_NUMBER = 8080
# This class will handles any incoming request from
# the browser
class myHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_POST(self):
content_len = int(self.headers.getheader('content-length'))
post_body = self.rfile.read(content_len)
self.send_response(200)
self.end_headers()
data = json.loads(post_body)
# Use the post data
cmd = "your shell cmd"
p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
p_status = p.wait()
(output, err) = p.communicate()
print "Command output : ", output
print "Command exit status/return code : ", p_status
self.wfile.write(cmd + "\n")
return
try:
# Create a web server and define the handler to manage the
# incoming request
server = HTTPServer(('', PORT_NUMBER), myHandler)
print 'Started httpserver on port ' , PORT_NUMBER
# Wait forever for incoming http requests
server.serve_forever()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print '^C received, shutting down the web server'
server.socket.close()
If you are not worried about security and you're simply looking to start a docker container on the host from within another docker container like the OP, you can share the docker server running on the host with the docker container by sharing it's listen socket.
Please see https://docs.docker.com/engine/security/security/#docker-daemon-attack-surface and see if your personal risk tolerance allows this for this particular application.
You can do this by adding the following volume args to your start command
docker run -v /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock ...
or by sharing /var/run/docker.sock within your docker compose file like this:
version: '3'
services:
ci:
command: ...
image: ...
volumes:
- /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock
When you run the docker start command within your docker container,
the docker server running on your host will see the request and provision the sibling container.
credit: http://jpetazzo.github.io/2015/09/03/do-not-use-docker-in-docker-for-ci/
As Marcus reminds, docker is basically process isolation. Starting with docker 1.8, you can copy files both ways between the host and the container, see the doc of docker cp
https://docs.docker.com/reference/commandline/cp/
Once a file is copied, you can run it locally
docker run --detach-keys="ctrl-p" -it -v /:/mnt/rootdir --name testing busybox
# chroot /mnt/rootdir
#
I have a simple approach.
Step 1: Mount /var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock (So you will be able to execute docker commands inside your container)
Step 2: Execute this below inside your container. The key part here is (--network host as this will execute from host context)
docker run -i --rm --network host -v /opt/test.sh:/test.sh alpine:3.7
sh /test.sh
test.sh should contain the some commands (ifconfig, netstat etc...) whatever you need.
Now you will be able to get host context output.
You can use the pipe concept, but use a file on the host and fswatch to accomplish the goal to execute a script on the host machine from a docker container. Like so (Use at your own risk):
#! /bin/bash
touch .command_pipe
chmod +x .command_pipe
# Use fswatch to execute a command on the host machine and log result
fswatch -o --event Updated .command_pipe | \
xargs -n1 -I "{}" .command_pipe >> .command_pipe_log &
docker run -it --rm \
--name alpine \
-w /home/test \
-v $PWD/.command_pipe:/dev/command_pipe \
alpine:3.7 sh
rm -rf .command_pipe
kill %1
In this example, inside the container send commands to /dev/command_pipe, like so:
/home/test # echo 'docker network create test2.network.com' > /dev/command_pipe
On the host, you can check if the network was created:
$ docker network ls | grep test2
8e029ec83afe test2.network.com bridge local
In my scenario I just ssh login the host (via host ip) within a container and then I can do anything I want to the host machine
I found answers using named pipes awesome. But I was wondering if there is a way to get the output of the executed command.
The solution is to create two named pipes:
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_in
mkfifo /path/to/pipe/exec_out
Then, the solution using a loop, as suggested by #Vincent, would become:
# on the host
while true; do eval "$(cat exec_in)" > exec_out; done
And then on the docker container, we can execute the command and get the output using:
# on the container
echo "ls -l" > /path/to/pipe/exec_in
cat /path/to/pipe/exec_out
If anyone interested, my need was to use a failover IP on the host from the container, I created this simple ruby method:
def fifo_exec(cmd)
exec_in = '/path/to/pipe/exec_in'
exec_out = '/path/to/pipe/exec_out'
%x[ echo #{cmd} > #{exec_in} ]
%x[ cat #{exec_out} ]
end
# example
fifo_exec "curl https://ip4.seeip.org"
Depending on the situation, this could be a helpful resource.
This uses a job queue (Celery) that can be run on the host, commands/data could be passed to this through Redis (or rabbitmq). In the example below, this is occurring in a django application (which is commonly dockerized).
https://www.codingforentrepreneurs.com/blog/celery-redis-django/
To expand on user2915097's response:
The idea of isolation is to be able to restrict what an application/process/container (whatever your angle at this is) can do to the host system very clearly. Hence, being able to copy and execute a file would really break the whole concept.
Yes. But it's sometimes necessary.
No. That's not the case, or Docker is not the right thing to use. What you should do is declare a clear interface for what you want to do (e.g. updating a host config), and write a minimal client/server to do exactly that and nothing more. Generally, however, this doesn't seem to be very desirable. In many cases, you should simply rethink your approach and eradicate that need. Docker came into an existence when basically everything was a service that was reachable using some protocol. I can't think of any proper usecase of a Docker container getting the rights to execute arbitrary stuff on the host.

How to open root#ad02e79cfb5b directory in windows terminal?

I have installed Linux subsystem and windows terminal. I ran image using docker (command of the form docker run -it ...... where "......" refers to further part of syntax).
After running of command finished, my current directory (which was PS C:\Users\krs>) changed to root#ad02e79cfb5b and i saw my project directory (say ProjectX) there (it was highlisghted in green) along with other directories like lib,tmp,bin (similar to linux directories in root folder).
However I don't know where root#ad02e79cfb5b:/# is present. I thought it might be root directory but when i open root directory there are folders like lib,tmp,bin but not ProjectX. I am also not able to open root#ad02e79cfb5b:/# using command cd root#ad02e79cfb5b:/#.
Where is root#ad02e79cfb5b:/# located ? How to access it again once I closed it?
When you run docker run with the -it flag it will run the container and give you a shell into it.
So the root#ad02e79cfb5b:/# you were seeing was the prompt inside the docker container (root is the user, ad02e79cfb5b is the host name and / means you are in the root folder).
To get back into it you first need to know if the container is still running. To achieve this run docker ps -a (not the thant the -a flag is important as without it you will only see running containers and not stopped ones).
If the container you ran is still running then note the id and run docker exec -it <container-id> /bin/bash to get a shell back to it.
If the container is stopped then I would suggest removing it docker rm <container-id> and re-running it (docker run -it ...).

Centos docker container crashes with 6 Segmentation fault - where's the core dump

running a Centos 7.1.1503 docker container, when adding a few lines of code (node.js) it crashes with the error:
/bin/sh: line 1: 6 Segmentation fault (core dumped) node --inspect server.js
the file /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern contains the following:
|/usr/libexec/abrt-hook-ccpp %s %c %p %u %g %t e
There's no /var/spool/abrt directory within the container. The /var/spool/abrt directory on the server running the containers doesn't get anything.
I can't change the /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern to point to another directory/program because of the read-only fs thing. Can't run the container in privileged, either :-(
I've read through tonnes of docker/stackexchange and other docs and can't figure out where/how to get the core dump?
In the olden days I'd play with the settings and wreck a replica of the machine, but this is a production container and I'm very limited in what I can do and when/how many times I can crash it :-(
Host is RHEL 7.1, docker version is 1.7
EDIT: On my laptop, running the same container (with docker 1.12 though), I sometimes get core dumps on the host /var/spool/abrt by running sleep 60 & in the container, then running (still in the container) kill -ABRT <pid of the sleep 60> . By "sometimes" I mean that trying again doesn't always work... I'm not sure why, but about 2 out of 3 tries succeed. I figure this might have to do with a privileged run or something..? I run the container with docker run -it centos bash. If I can understand this I might replicate this behavior in the production env.
Execute the following command to get a report of the paths of the upper layer of the filesystem of all the centos containers you may have launched:
docker ps -a | grep centos | awk '{print $1}' | xargs docker inspect | grep UpperDir | cut -d\" -f4
Bear in mind that you will have to become sudo to be able to access them (run sudo su before cd'ing)
The command above does the following:
Get a report of all the containers existing in your host
Select only the ones that have centos in their line
Get the first row of that report (container ID)
Get the inspect of every one of those containers
Look for the UpperDir parameter (upper layer of your container filesystem, and the one you tinkered with when your process crashed)
Cut the UpperDir string for improved presentation
After that, you are on your own. I am afraid I am of no help with the crash itself. But if you are still doubtful, write me some lines and I'll do my best ot help.
I hope this helps you!
I ended up skipping the abrt and changing the core_pattern file to out to a directory on the host. Here's my two bytes on getting a core dump out of a crashing docker instance:
On the host:
docker run --privileged -it -v /tmp:/core image-name bash
(you can do this with docker exec, but my machine didn't have the flags available to exec)
--privileged = required to be able to edit the /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern file
-v = to mount the /tmp directory of the host in a /core directory in the container
In the instance:
set the location of the core dumps to /core (which is a mount of the /tmp dir in the host machine):
echo "/core/core-%e-%s-%u-%g-%p-%t" > /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern
test it:
sleep 60 &
kill -SEGV <pid of that sleep process>
Should be able to see a core file in the /tmp dir on the host. When my instance crashed, I finally got the dump in the host machine.

Why there is no init / initctl on the docker centos image

Using the public/common docker's centos image I was installing some services that required a /etc/init directory and I had a failure. I have further noticed that initctl does not exist, meaning that init was not run.
How can the centos image be used with a fully functional init process ?
example:
docker run -t -i centos /bin/bash
file /etc/init
/etc/init: cannot open ... no such file or directory ( /etc/init )
initctl
bash: initctl: command not found
A Docker container is more analogous to a process than a VM. That process can spawn other processes though, and the sub-processes will run in the same container. A common pattern is to use a process supervisor like supervisord as described in the Docker documentation. In general though, it's usually recommended to try and run one process per container if you can (so that, for example, you can monitor and cap memory and CPU at the process level).

Port data out of docker container

I use this method below to port data out of one container.
docker run --volumes-from <data container> ubuntu tar -cO <volume path> | gzip -c > volume.tgz
But there is one problem with it is every time it performs a backup, there will be a zombie container left. What is the good way to get that id and remove the zombie container afterward.
Thanks
Apparently, you just want to be able to export volume data. To do that, you just need to start your initial container with a volume pointing to a directory on the host with the -v option. You can tar on the host without creating a container for it. Your current tactic seems a bit over-engineered ;)
The easy way to remove the container after executing the command, is to use the option --rm, from here
However, if you feel that the container you are creating will have data that you will need to
1. update in real time
2. access after the container has been created
then you may also mount a host directory as a container volume and access the contents of that directory from the host.
If you start a container using the -volume option, you can also call reference the directory created on this host
$ docker run -v /volume_directory ubuntu
$ container=$(docker ps -n=1 -q)
$ docker inspect -f '{{.Volumes}}' $container

Resources