[GH-ISSUE #6745] build: fnettrace: cannot execute binary file (cross-compilation)

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:17 -06:00

Owner

Originally created by @lamar-studio on GitHub (May 8, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/6745

Description

Hello, I'd like to report an issue. While cross-compiling for the ARM64 architecture on Ubuntu_x86, I encountered the following error:

/bin/sh: ../.../.../src/fnettrace/fnettrace: cannot execute binary file  
make[1]: *** [static-ip-map] Error 126  
make[1]: Leaving directory `/data1/linzaorong/linzr/c6c/firejail-0.9.74/src/fnettrace'  
make: *** [src/fnettrace/fnettrace] Error 2

The root cause is that fnettrace was compiled as an ARM64 binary, which cannot run directly on the Ubuntu_x86 host. Similar issues occurred later during the compilation process (e.g., attempting to execute ARM64 binaries generated during compilation). How should such issues be resolved?

Environment

Name/version/arch of the Linux kernel (uname -srm): Linux 5.15.0-139-generic x86_64
Name/version of the Linux distribution (e.g. "Ubuntu 20.04" or "Arch Linux"): Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS

Originally created by @lamar-studio on GitHub (May 8, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/6745 ### Description Hello, I'd like to report an issue. While cross-compiling for the ARM64 architecture on Ubuntu_x86, I encountered the following error: ``` /bin/sh: ../.../.../src/fnettrace/fnettrace: cannot execute binary file make[1]: *** [static-ip-map] Error 126 make[1]: Leaving directory `/data1/linzaorong/linzr/c6c/firejail-0.9.74/src/fnettrace' make: *** [src/fnettrace/fnettrace] Error 2 ``` The root cause is that `fnettrace` was compiled as an ARM64 binary, which cannot run directly on the Ubuntu_x86 host. Similar issues occurred later during the compilation process (e.g., attempting to execute ARM64 binaries generated during compilation). How should such issues be resolved? ### Environment - Name/version/arch of the Linux kernel (`uname -srm`): Linux 5.15.0-139-generic x86_64 - Name/version of the Linux distribution (e.g. "Ubuntu 20.04" or "Arch Linux"): Ubuntu 20.04.6 LTS

gitea-mirror added the

bug

needinfo

labels 2026-05-05 09:56:17 -06:00

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:18 -06:00

Author

Owner

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 8, 2025):

Hello, I'd like to report an issue. While cross-compiling for the ARM64
architecture on Ubuntu_x86, I encountered the following error:
/bin/sh: ../.../.../src/fnettrace/fnettrace: cannot execute binary file  
make[1]: *** [static-ip-map] Error 126  
make[1]: Leaving directory `/data1/linzaorong/linzr/c6c/firejail-0.9.74/src/fnettrace'  
make: *** [src/fnettrace/fnettrace] Error 2  
The root cause is that fnettrace was compiled as an ARM64 binary, which
cannot run directly on the Ubuntu_x86 host.

This is likely because fnettrace is used to build static-ip-map:

https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/blob/0d8973638cbf75a3a6d3d29a6dcc5c14541e3748/src/fnettrace/Makefile#L14-L16

Similar issues occurred later during the compilation process (e.g.,
attempting to execute ARM64 binaries generated during compilation).

That is not clear from the log provided.

Please post the full configure/make build logs and the missing environment
items from the build issue template:

https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/new?template=build_issue.md

How should such issues be resolved?

Maybe we could add a configure option to disable building fnettrace.

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 8, 2025): > Hello, I'd like to report an issue. While cross-compiling for the ARM64 > architecture on Ubuntu_x86, I encountered the following error: > > ``` > /bin/sh: ../.../.../src/fnettrace/fnettrace: cannot execute binary file > make[1]: *** [static-ip-map] Error 126 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/data1/linzaorong/linzr/c6c/firejail-0.9.74/src/fnettrace' > make: *** [src/fnettrace/fnettrace] Error 2 > ``` > > The root cause is that `fnettrace` was compiled as an ARM64 binary, which > cannot run directly on the Ubuntu_x86 host. This is likely because `fnettrace` is used to build `static-ip-map`: * <https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/blob/0d8973638cbf75a3a6d3d29a6dcc5c14541e3748/src/fnettrace/Makefile#L14-L16> > Similar issues occurred later during the compilation process (e.g., > attempting to execute ARM64 binaries generated during compilation). That is not clear from the log provided. Please post the full configure/make build logs and the missing environment items from the build issue template: * <https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/new?template=build_issue.md> > How should such issues be resolved? Maybe we could add a configure option to disable building `fnettrace`.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:19 -06:00

Author

Owner

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

When performing cross-compilation on Ubuntu, technical challenges may emerge due to the execution of binaries targeting different architectures during the compilation process. To address this, it would be advisable to refine the compilation scripts to ensure proper cross-platform compatibility.

For instance, the code snippet shown below cannot be executed. Other similar scenarios may require cross-compilation environments that involve rigorous stress testing.

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index e18749c..a61c888 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -83,31 +83,31 @@ strip: all
 .PHONY: filters
 filters: $(SECCOMP_FILTERS)
 seccomp: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp
-       src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp
+#      src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp

 seccomp.debug: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp.debug allow-debuggers
-       src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.debug
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp.debug allow-debuggers
+#      src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.debug

 seccomp.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary 32 seccomp.32
-       src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.32
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary 32 seccomp.32
+#      src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.32

 seccomp.block_secondary: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary block seccomp.block_secondary
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary block seccomp.block_secondary

 seccomp.mdwx: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute seccomp.mdwx
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute seccomp.mdwx

 seccomp.mdwx.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute.32 seccomp.mdwx.32
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute.32 seccomp.mdwx.32

 seccomp.namespaces: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts

 seccomp.namespaces.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile
-       src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces.32 cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts
+#      src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces.32 cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts

 .PHONY: man
 man:

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): When performing cross-compilation on Ubuntu, technical challenges may emerge due to the execution of binaries targeting different architectures during the compilation process. To address this, it would be advisable to refine the compilation scripts to ensure proper cross-platform compatibility. For instance, the code snippet shown below cannot be executed. Other similar scenarios may require cross-compilation environments that involve rigorous stress testing. ``` diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index e18749c..a61c888 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -83,31 +83,31 @@ strip: all .PHONY: filters filters: $(SECCOMP_FILTERS) seccomp: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp - src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp +# src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp seccomp.debug: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp.debug allow-debuggers - src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.debug +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp default seccomp.debug allow-debuggers +# src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.debug seccomp.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary 32 seccomp.32 - src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.32 +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary 32 seccomp.32 +# src/fsec-optimize/fsec-optimize seccomp.32 seccomp.block_secondary: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary block seccomp.block_secondary +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp secondary block seccomp.block_secondary seccomp.mdwx: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute seccomp.mdwx +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute seccomp.mdwx seccomp.mdwx.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute.32 seccomp.mdwx.32 +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp memory-deny-write-execute.32 seccomp.mdwx.32 seccomp.namespaces: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts seccomp.namespaces.32: src/fseccomp/fseccomp Makefile - src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces.32 cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts +# src/fseccomp/fseccomp restrict-namespaces seccomp.namespaces.32 cgroup,ipc,net,mnt,pid,time,user,uts .PHONY: man man: ```

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:20 -06:00

Author

Owner

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

When performing cross-compilation on Ubuntu, technical challenges may emerge
due to the execution of binaries targeting different architectures during the
compilation process. To address this, it would be advisable to refine the
compilation scripts to ensure proper cross-platform compatibility.

For instance, the code snippet shown below cannot be executed. Other similar
scenarios may require cross-compilation environments that involve rigorous
stress testing.

This sounds like AI-generated slop and adds nothing new.

So what is your point?

Did you actually read the previous comment?

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > When performing cross-compilation on Ubuntu, technical challenges may emerge > due to the execution of binaries targeting different architectures during the > compilation process. To address this, it would be advisable to refine the > compilation scripts to ensure proper cross-platform compatibility. > > For instance, the code snippet shown below cannot be executed. Other similar > scenarios may require cross-compilation environments that involve rigorous > stress testing. This sounds like AI-generated slop and adds nothing new. So what is your point? Did you actually read the previous comment?

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:20 -06:00

Author

Owner

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible.

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible.

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:21 -06:00

Author

Owner

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a
cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible.

That already seemed to be the case.

See this comment:

https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/6745#issuecomment-2862141496

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a > cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible. That already seemed to be the case. See this comment: * <https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/6745#issuecomment-2862141496>

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:21 -06:00

Author

Owner

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a
cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible.

That already seemed to be the case.

See this comment:

build: fnettrace: cannot execute binary file (cross-compilation) #6745 (comment)

Thank you for your response. Additionally, I'd like to ask whether the latest version of Firejail supports physical memory limitations. The --rlimit-as option seems to restrict virtual memory instead.

ref：https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/discussions/6757

@lamar-studio commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > > What I meant to say is that you can verify this issue yourself using a > > cross-compilation environment - the problem is 100% reproducible. > > That already seemed to be the case. > > See this comment: > > * [build: fnettrace: cannot execute binary file (cross-compilation) #6745 (comment)](https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/6745#issuecomment-2862141496) Thank you for your response. Additionally, I'd like to ask whether the latest version of Firejail supports physical memory limitations. The --rlimit-as option seems to restrict virtual memory instead. ref：https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/discussions/6757

gitea-mirror commented

2026-05-05 09:56:21 -06:00

Author

Owner

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025):

Thank you for your response.

No problem.

Additionally, I'd like to ask whether the latest version of Firejail supports
physical memory limitations. The --rlimit-as option seems to restrict virtual
memory instead.

ref：#6757

That was already asked and anyone can see and reply to it if they know the
answer.

There is no point in talking about it in unrelated issues.

@kmk3 commented on GitHub (May 22, 2025): > Thank you for your response. No problem. > Additionally, I'd like to ask whether the latest version of Firejail supports > physical memory limitations. The --rlimit-as option seems to restrict virtual > memory instead. > > ref：[#6757](https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/discussions/6757) That was already asked and anyone can see and reply to it if they know the answer. There is no point in talking about it in unrelated issues.

Rows
Columns

[GH-ISSUE #6745] build: fnettrace: cannot execute binary file (cross-compilation) #3357

Description

Environment