Improving multi-platform container support

Richard Lander

Docker makes it straightforward to build container images that target a specific hardware architecture (Arm and x64). This is particularly useful if you have an Arm64 M1/M2/M3 Apple Mac and want to build containers for an x64 cloud service. We are encouraging a new pattern for building container images for multiple architectures. It has better performance and better integrates with the BuildKit build model. This approach also opens the door to better optimized multi-platform images using docker buildx build with the --platform switch. If your development, CI, and production hardware match (all x64 or all Arm64), then these changes may not be important. If your hardware is a mix of Arm64 and x64, then these changes will likely bring welcome improvements.

When would you need this? When you build an x64 container image on an Arm64 machine, for example.

docker build --platform linux/amd64 -t app .

This Dockerfile demonstrates the pattern we’ve adopted.

These improvements will be included in the .NET SDK, in .NET 8 Preview 3 (#30762) and 7.0.300 (#31319). Aspects of this new pattern work with existing releases.

There are really two different scenarios at play, which I’m calling “multi-platform”.

  • Build a container image for a specific architecture (different than your machine).
  • Build multiple container images at once, for multiple architectures.

Everything we’re going to look at applies to both of these scenarios.

Multi-platform build

Let’s start with the Docker multi-platform model. We’ll assume that the user is using Apple Arm64 hardware. In fact, I’m writing this all on a MacBook Air M1 laptop, which will make it easy for me to demonstrate the behavior.

Docker has a --platform switch that you can use to control the output of your images. I’m going to show you how this system works using Alpine, to make the explanation as simple as possible.

Here’s a simple Dockerfile to test the behavior. The alpine tag is a multi-platform tag (more on that shortly).

FROM alpine

Let’s build it and validate the results. Again, I’m on an Arm64 machine.

% docker build -t image .
% docker inspect image -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}" 

We have an Arm64 image, as expected.

We can target x64 by using the --platform switch.

% docker build -t image --platform linux/amd64 .
% docker inspect image -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}"

Now we have an x64 image. If we run the image, we can see that it is x64 — via the x86_64 string — but there is a warning due to the image (which will be emulated) and the implicit platform not matching.

% docker run --rm image uname -a
WARNING: The requested image's platform (linux/amd64) does not match the detected host platform (linux/arm64/v8) and no specific platform was requested
Linux 188008b850d3 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022 x86_64 Linux

--platform can be used to get rid of that error message.

% docker run --rm --platform linux/amd64 image uname -a
Linux 40b8d36a90f8 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022 x86_64 Linux

The --platform switch is a bit subtle. I’ll explain.

The first take-away is that --platform is always set, implicitly as your machine platform or an explicitly specified one.

The bigger point is that --platform affects (A) multi-platform tags (like alpine) and (B) the configuration of the final image.

We can see that alpine is a multi-platform tag, supporting several architectures:

% docker manifest inspect alpine | grep architecture
            "architecture": "amd64",
            "architecture": "arm",
            "architecture": "arm",
            "architecture": "arm64",
            "architecture": "386",
            "architecture": "ppc64le",
            "architecture": "s390x",

The platform value (implicitly or explicitly specified) is used to pick which of those architecture-specific images to pull. Each one of those is a distinct image with its own separately compiled copy of Alpine Linux, all referenced from the alpine tag.

The Alpine team also publishes architecture-specific images, such as arm64v8/alpine.

% docker manifest inspect -v arm64v8/alpine | grep architecture
            "architecture": "arm64",

We can still use the --platform switch with this tag, but we’ll get incorrect results.

% echo "FROM arm64v8/alpine" > Dockerfile
% docker build -t image .
% docker inspect image -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}"
% docker build -t image --platform linux/amd64 .
% docker inspect image -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}"
% docker run --rm -it image uname -a
WARNING: The requested image's platform (linux/amd64) does not match the detected host platform (linux/arm64/v8) and no specific platform was requested
Linux d9abfaec07a1 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022 aarch64 Linux

If you look closely, you’ll see that this image is misconfigured. It is an aarch64 image but is marked as linux/amd64. That’s not very helpful.

In case you missed it in bash output, our Dockerfile now looks like the following.

FROM arm64v8/alpine

You can safely and correctly use the --platform tag with Dockerfiles that have a mix of multi-platform and platform-specific tags, however, the final stage must reference a multi-platform image. In our updated Dockerfile, we have one FROM statement with a platform-specific tag, so using the --platform switch is user error and expected to result in a bad image.

We’re almost done on background context. Docker also defines a bunch of ARG values, as you can see in the following Dockerfile.

FROM alpine

RUN echo "Building on $BUILDPLATFORM, targeting $TARGETPLATFORM"
RUN echo "Building on ${BUILDOS} and ${BUILDARCH} with optional variant ${BUILDVARIANT}"
RUN echo "Targeting ${TARGETOS} and ${TARGETARCH} with optional variant ${TARGETVARIANT}"

We can build the Dockerfile targeting x64 (on Arm64).

% docker build -t image --platform linux/amd64 .
[+] Building 1.7s (8/8) FINISHED                                                
 => [internal] load build definition from Dockerfile                       0.0s
 => => transferring dockerfile: 428B                                       0.0s
 => [internal] load .dockerignore                                          0.0s
 => => transferring context: 2B                                            0.0s
 => [internal] load metadata for           0.0s
 => [1/4] FROM                                    0.0s
 => [2/4] RUN echo "Building on linux/arm64, targeting linux/amd64"        0.2s
 => [3/4] RUN echo "Building on linux and arm64 with optional variant "    0.3s
 => [4/4] RUN echo "Targeting linux and amd64 with optional variant "      0.3s
 => exporting to image                                                     0.0s
 => => exporting layers                                                    0.0s
 => => writing image sha256:c70637a6942e07f3a00eb03c1c6bf1cd8a709e91cd627  0.0s
 => => naming to

Make sure to pay close attention to those RUN echo lines.

These environment variables will prove useful when we look at our solution for .NET, in the next section.

Build .NET images for any architecture

We’re now going to look at how to build .NET images using similar techniques to what we just looked at with Alpine.

There are a few characteristics that we want:

  • A single Dockerfile should work for multiple architectures.
  • The result should be optimal.
  • The SDK should always run with the native architecture, both because it is faster and because .NET doesn’t support QEMU.

We’ll use Dockerfile.alpine-non-root. This Dockerfile has been updated for .NET 8 already, both enabling non-root hosting and multi-platform targeting.

There are a few lines in this Dockerfile that do something special that help us achieve those characteristics.

FROM --platform=$BUILDPLATFORM AS build

The Dockerfile format enables specifying the --platform switch for a FROM statement and to use a built-in ARG to provide the value. In this case, we’re saying that the $BUILDPLATFORM (AKA the local machine architecture) should always be used. On an Arm64 machine, this will always be Arm64, even if targeting x64.

This pattern doesn’t actually require .NET 8. It works with any .NET version. In fact, it will work with any multi-platform tag, like for Node.js or Java. It’s just a Docker feature.

However, we’re using a nightly image here so that we can take advantage of the features that come next. The -a $TARGETARCH feature required two different changes in .NET 8. After we ship Preview 3, then a nightly image won’t be needed.

RUN dotnet restore -a $TARGETARCH

# copy everything else and build app
COPY aspnetapp/. .
RUN dotnet publish -a $TARGETARCH --no-restore -o /app

We’re now restoring and publishing the app for the target architecture, using another built-in argument.

Underneath the covers, the SDK is creating a Runtime ID (RID). That’s the same as specifying -r argument. The -a argument is a shortcut for that. We recommend publishing apps as RID-specific in containers. Some NuGet packages include multiple copies of native dependencies. By publish an app as RID-specific, you will get just one copy of those dependencies (reducing container size), matching your target environment.

If you are building an Alpine image and use this pattern, make sure that use an Alpine-based SDK, so that linux-musl will be inferred when you use -a to specify the architecture. Read dotnet/sdk #30369 for more information.

You might be used to seeing -c Release in Dockerfiles. We’ve made that the default for dotnet publish with .NET 8, making it optional. We’ve been working on improving .NET SDK defaults.


The second (and last) FROM statement is a multi-platform tag. It will be affected by the --platform switch (from docker build). That’s what we want.

Let’s try it out.

% pwd
% docker build --pull -t aspnetapp -f Dockerfile.alpine-non-root .
% docker inspect aspnetapp -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}" 

We see an Arm64 image.

Let’s try targeting x64.

% docker build --pull -t aspnetapp -f Dockerfile.alpine-non-root --platform linux/amd64 .
% docker inspect aspnetapp -f "{{.Os}}/{{.Architecture}}"
% docker run --rm --platform linux/amd64 --entrypoint ash aspnetapp -c "uname -a" 
Linux c61047789bbd 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022 x86_64 Linux

That looks great. We have an x64 image.

These changes are first showing up with .NET 8 Preview 3 although you can try it now with our nightly repo (FROM statement is listed above). You can try it for .NET 8 apps, but also .NET 6 and 7 apps, too. The .NET 8 SDK can build apps for those earlier versions with this same approach. If you use the nightly build for .NET 8 apps, you’ll need to add a .NET 8 nuget.config. If you don’t want to bother with that, then just wait for Preview 3.

Build multi-platform images with docker buildx

Buildx is a nice addition to Docker tools. I think of it as “full BuildKit”. For our purposes, it enables specifying multiple platforms to build at once and to package them all up as a multi-platform tag. It will even push them to your registry, all with a single command.

We first need to setup buildx.

% docker buildx create

We can now build a multi-platform image for our app.

% docker buildx build --pull -t aspnetapp -f Dockerfile.alpine-non-root --platform linux/arm64,linux/arm,linux/amd64 .

Here, we’re building for three architectures. In some environments, you can also specify just the architectures as a short-hand, avoiding repeating “linux”.

With that command, you’ll see the following warning.

WARNING: No output specified with docker-container driver. Build result will only remain in the build cache. To push result image into registry use --push or to load image into docker use --load

If you want to push your image to a registry, you need to add the --push argument and use a fully-specified registry name for the -t argument. Alternatively, you can use --load to export images to your Docker cache. --load, however, only works when targeting one architecture at a time.

Let’s try --push (with my registry; you’ll need to switch to your own).

% docker buildx build --pull --push -t -f Dockerfile.alpine-non-root --platform linux/arm64,linux/arm,linux/amd64 .

That command pushed 3 images and 1 tag to the registry.

I can now try pulling the image on my Apple laptop. It would work the same on my Raspberry Pi.

% docker run --rm -d -p 8080:8080
% curl http://localhost:8080/Environment
{"runtimeVersion":".NET 8.0.0-preview.2.23128.3","osVersion":"Linux 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022","osArchitecture":"Arm64","user":"app","processorCount":4,"totalAvailableMemoryBytes":4124512256,"memoryLimit":0,"memoryUsage":29548544}%
% docker exec 08968dcce418db4d6f746bfa3a5f2afdcf66570bc8a726c4f5a4859e8666e354 uname -a
Linux 5d4a712c32b9 5.15.49-linuxkit #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 13 07:51:32 UTC 2022 aarch64 Linux
% docker kill 08968dcce418db4d6f746bfa3a5f2afdcf66570bc8a726c4f5a4859e8666e354

I’ll now try the same image on an x64 machine.

$ docker run --rm -d -p 8080:8080
$ curl http://localhost:8080/Environment
{"runtimeVersion":".NET 8.0.0-preview.2.23128.3","osVersion":"Linux 4.4.180+ #42962 SMP Tue Sep 20 22:35:50 CST 2022","osArchitecture":"X64","user":"app","processorCount":8,"totalAvailableMemoryBytes":8096030720,"memoryLimit":9223372036854771712,"memoryUsage":94019584}
$ docker exec 6dac425acc325da1c085608d503d6c884610cfa5b2a7dd93575f20355daec1a2 uname -a
Linux 6dac425acc32 4.4.180+ #42962 SMP Tue Sep 20 22:35:50 CST 2022 x86_64 Linux
$ docker kill 6dac425acc325da1c085608d503d6c884610cfa5b2a7dd93575f20355daec1a2

The results look good and the process was straightforward.

Note: I won’t keep my registry up for long. It is just there for demonstration purposes and to show what’s possible.


This new Dockerfile pattern for .NET apps makes it simpler, easier, and faster to build containers for whichever architecture you want on whichever machine you want. We’ve had past difficulties with x64 emulation with QEMU. This approach side-steps QEMU completely, which avoid the problems we’ve had and improves performance at the same time.

We wonder how teams will use the multi-platform container capability. Will you target multiple architectures at the developer desktop or also in CI? In particular, we wonder if teams will push both Arm64 and x64 container images to their registry even if only one of those architectures is needed by a cloud container service. Will pushing multiple architectures help developers investigate production issues when their local machine doesn’t match the architecture of the cloud service? Please tell us if you have plans or existing practices on that topic.

We hope that this new pattern works for you, that it makes it easier to target multiple platforms and that you appreciate having docker build --platform and docker buildx build --platform as more straightforward options.

1 comment

Comments are closed. Login to edit/delete your existing comments

  • Paco Calvo 2

    Wish to have an Arm64 M3 Apple Mac anytime soon. 😉

Feedback usabilla icon