Open tom-pryke opened 2 years ago
Thanks for the bug report!
I will try and reproduce this on my M1 MacBook Pro.
I ran into this issue while trying to get it to run: https://github.com/docker/for-mac/issues/6297
@tom-pryke do you have any more details on how you're running this and the version of Docker/Docker Compose you're using?
I suspect the kernel Docker is using on the M1 Mac in QEMU does not the correct module support.
@calebbrown I'm using Docker for Mac, version 20.10.12 and docker-compose version 1.29.2. I did also try with docker compose v2 but ran into the same issue. I also have docker desktop 4.4.2.
I'm running the e2e example using:
docker-compose up -d
Update:
Same results when running Docker 20.10.17, compose 2.10.2 and desktop 4.12.0
Thanks for those details. I've spent some more time researching this, and:
We could try and add arm64 support, but this will mean results will differ between our production and development environments. In the future we may want to have arm64 based workers, but this would be in addition to amd64.
The other option would be to allow the network isolation to be disabled, but since we are running untrusted workloads this would put your local network at risk of attack.
Unfortunately this means your only good option for running Package Analysis on an M1 Mac is to install UTM (https://mac.getutm.app/) or QEMU (https://www.qemu.org/) and use package-analysis inside an emulated VM.
For reference I have been able to successfully start the docker-compose stack using UTM, with an Arch Linux qcow2 image.
I will leave this bug open to track documentation updates to help users on M1 Macs (or any other non-amd64 architectures).
Thanks for looking into it. I'll try setting up with an emulated VM
Hi,
I'm trying to run the e2e docker compose example on an M1 Mac (ARM). I've made no changes to the example.
I'm getting the following error (from the e2e_analysis_1 container):
"error": "failed to start packet capture (eth0: SIOCETHTOOL(ETHTOOL_GET_TS_INFO) ioctl failed: Function not implemented)"}
I think the network interface should be en0 rather than eth0. I was wondering if this was configurable, and whether I'm likely to hit other blockers trying to run on ARM?
Thanks,
Tom