moby: failed sandbox add: failed to add interface veth92b5e1e to sandbox: failed in prefunc: failed to set namespace on link "veth92b5e1e": invalid argument

-> % docker version
Client:
 Version:      1.9.0-dev
 API version:  1.21
 Go version:   go1.4.2
 Git commit:   5fd15da
 Built:        Sat Aug 22 04:14:56 UTC 2015
 OS/Arch:      linux/amd64

Server:
 Version:      1.9.0-dev
 API version:  1.21
 Go version:   go1.4.2
 Git commit:   5fd15da
 Built:        Sat Aug 22 04:14:56 UTC 2015
 OS/Arch:      linux/amd64
-> % docker info
Containers: 22
Images: 28
Storage Driver: aufs
 Root Dir: /var/lib/docker/aufs
 Backing Filesystem: extfs
 Dirs: 72
 Dirperm1 Supported: true
Execution Driver: native-0.2
Logging Driver: json-file
Kernel Version: 3.19.0-27-generic
Operating System: Ubuntu 14.04.3 LTS
CPUs: 8
Total Memory: 15.31 GiB
Name: lenovo
ID: TA2Y:DHEU:5GOY:YHDX:E24K:C66E:H35N:JMJY:A2DM:NKGM:2OR4:MUOY
WARNING: No swap limit support
-> % uname -a
Linux lenovo 3.19.0-27-generic #29~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Sun Aug 16 01:51:13 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Almost fresh Ubuntu installation, had a RHEL6.6 before with docker working fine there. Tried script from https://get.docker.com/ and latest build, same error.

Basically can’t start anything:

-> % docker run hello-world
Error response from daemon: Cannot start container ea8ded236cc909153d1afa9435094f4a34221d76408dd11a710629232fdd6214: failed sandbox add: failed to add interface veth324ba41 to sandbox: failed in prefunc: failed to set namespace on link "veth324ba41": invalid argument

About this issue

  • Original URL
  • State: closed
  • Created 9 years ago
  • Comments: 19 (10 by maintainers)

Most upvoted comments

Well, I can confirm this is still an issue for IBM-ers (I’m running RHEL 7.2 with latest docker). On Jan 16, 2016 09:47, “Sebastiaan van Stijn” notifications@github.com wrote:

@sw1sh https://github.com/sw1sh is this still an issue or should this be closed?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/15772#issuecomment-172173398.