Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

On my Arch Linux system (Linux Kernel 3.14.2) bind mounts do not respect the read only option

# mkdir test
# mount --bind -o ro test/ /mnt
# touch /mnt/foo

creates the file /mnt/foo. The relevant entry in /proc/mounts is

/dev/sda2 /mnt ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0

The mount options do not match my requested options, but do match both the read/write behaviour of the bind mount and the options used to originally mount /dev/sda2 on /

/dev/sda2 / ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0

If, however, I remount the mount then it respects the read only option

# mount --bind -o remount,ro test/ /mnt
# touch /mnt/bar
touch: cannot touch ‘/mnt/bar’: Read-only file system

and the relevant entry in /proc/mounts/

/dev/sda2 /mnt ext4 ro,relatime,data=ordered 0 0

looks like what I might expect (although in truth I would expect to see the full path of the test directory). The entry in /proc/mounts/ for the orignal mount of /dev/sda2/ on / is also unchanged and remains read/write

/dev/sda2 / ext4 rw,noatime,data=ordered 0 0

This behaviour and the work around have been known since at least 2008 and are documented in the man page of mount

Note that the filesystem mount options will remain the same as those on the original mount point, and cannot be changed by passing the -o option along with --bind/--rbind. The mount options can be changed by a separate remount command

Not all distributions behave the same. Arch seems to silently fail to respect the options while Debian generates a warning when the bind mount does not get mount read-only

mount: warning: /mnt seems to be mounted read-write.

There are reports that this behaviour was "fixed" in Debian Lenny and Squeeze although it does not appear to be a universal fix nor does it still work in Debian Wheezy. What is the difficultly associated with making bind mount respect the read only option on the initial mount?

share|improve this question
    
Do you have an /etc/mtab? – eyoung100 May 7 '14 at 15:58
    
See also thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.utilities.util-linux-ng/2979 and a workaround by using mount -t bind and a helper script at bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mountall/+bug/519380 – Stéphane Chazelas May 7 '14 at 16:06
    
@ECarterYoung yes I have an /etc/mtab. After the initial mount the entry says the mount is rw and after the remount it says ro, so it is reporting the state of the mount correctly. It is just the mount command that fails. – StrongBad May 7 '14 at 16:10
3  
I tested on two Debian testing/unstable machines, one running a Debian kernel and one running a kernel.org kernel, neither work with mount --bind -o ro, they both spit out a message mount: warning: «mountpoint» seems to be mounted read-write. So it seems Debian dropped or lost the patch at some point... Remount works, though. – derobert May 7 '14 at 16:50
2  
@StrongBad Tested that as requested, and it doesn't work either. – derobert May 7 '14 at 17:09
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Bind mount is just... well... a bind mount. I.e. it's not a new mount. It just "links"/"exposes"/"considers" a subdirectory as a new mount point. As such it cannot alter the mount parameters. That's why you're getting complaints:

# mount /mnt/1/lala /mnt/2 -o bind,ro
mount: warning: /mnt/2 seems to be mounted read-write.

But as you said a normal bind mount works:

# mount /mnt/1/lala /mnt/2 -o bind

And then a ro remount also works:

# mount /mnt/1/lala /mnt/2 -o bind,remount,ro 

However what happens is that you're changing the whole mount and not just this bind mount. If you take a look at /proc/mounts you'll see that both bind mount and the original mount change to read-only:

/dev/loop0 /mnt/1 ext2 ro,relatime,errors=continue,user_xattr,acl 0 0
/dev/loop0 /mnt/2 ext2 ro,relatime,errors=continue,user_xattr,acl 0 0

So what you're doing is like changing the initial mount to a read-only mount and then doing a bind mount which will of course be read-only.

UPDATE 2016-07-20:

The following are true for 4.5 kernels, but not true for 4.3 kernels (This is wrong. See update #2 below):

The kernel has two flags that control read-only:

  • The MS_READONLY: Indicating whether the mount is read-only
  • The MNT_READONLY: Indicating whether the "user" wants it read-only

On a 4.5 kernel, doing a mount -o bind,ro will actually do the trick. For example, this:

# mkdir /tmp/test
# mkdir /tmp/test/a /tmp/test/b
# mount -t tmpfs none /tmp/test/a
# mkdir /tmp/test/a/d
# mount -o bind,ro /tmp/test/a/d /tmp/test/b

will create a read-only bind mount of /tmp/test/a/d to /tmp/test/b, which will be visible in /proc/mounts as:

none /tmp/test/a tmpfs rw,relatime 0 0
none /tmp/test/b tmpfs ro,relatime 0 0

A more detailed view is visible in /proc/self/mountinfo, which takes into consideration the user view (namespace). The relevant lines will be these:

363 74 0:49 / /tmp/test/a rw,relatime shared:273 - tmpfs none rw
368 74 0:49 /d /tmp/test/b ro,relatime shared:273 - tmpfs none rw

Where on the second line, you can see that it says both ro (MNT_READONLY) and rw (!MS_READONLY).

The end result is this:

# echo a > /tmp/test/a/d/f
# echo a > /tmp/test/b/f
-su: /tmp/test/b/f: Read-only file system

UPDATE 2016-07-20 #2:

A bit more digging into this shows that the behavior in fact depends on the version of libmount which is part of util-linux. Support for this was added with this commit and was released with version 2.27:

commit 9ac77b8a78452eab0612523d27fee52159f5016a
Author: Karel Zak 
Date:   Mon Aug 17 11:54:26 2015 +0200

    libmount: add support for "bind,ro"

    Now it's necessary t use two mount(8) calls to create a read-only
    mount:

      mount /foo /bar -o bind
      mount /bar -o remount,ro,bind

    This patch allows to specify "bind,ro" and the remount is done
    automatically by libmount by additional mount(2) syscall. It's not
    atomic of course.

    Signed-off-by: Karel Zak 

which also provides the workaround. The behavior can be seen using strace on an older and a newer mount:

Old:

mount("/tmp/test/a/d", "/tmp/test/b", 0x222e240, MS_MGC_VAL|MS_RDONLY|MS_BIND, NULL) = 0 <0.000681>

New:

mount("/tmp/test/a/d", "/tmp/test/b", 0x1a8ee90, MS_MGC_VAL|MS_RDONLY|MS_BIND, NULL) = 0 <0.011492>
mount("none", "/tmp/test/b", NULL, MS_RDONLY|MS_REMOUNT|MS_BIND, NULL) = 0 <0.006281>

Conclusion:

To achieve the desired result one needs to run two commands (as @Thomas already said):

mount SRC DST -o bind
mount DST -o remount,ro,bind

Newer versions of mount (util-linux >=2.27) do this automatically when one runs

mount SRC DST -o bind,ro
share|improve this answer
2  
Yes, but no. IIRC there is some support in the kernel for different mount points (not filesystems) to have different options. Debian used to have a patch that made mount -o bind,ro create a read-only view of a read-write filesystem (but it no longer seems to be there in wheezy). – Gilles May 7 '14 at 23:07
    
I don't see how this contradicts the above. Hacks can allow all sorts of stuff, including things that don't make much sense. Currently the read-only remount on 3.14 kernel is eventually handled by this call: mnt_make_readonly(real_mount(mnt)), which as you can see uses real_mount(), so it practically affects the real mount and that causes bind mounts to reflect the new (read-only) mount flag. At least that's my understanding. – V13 May 7 '14 at 23:21
    
So this would be a consequence of the “spread struct mount” patch (specifically this commit), first appearing in kernel 3.3. Do you know if the consequences of this patch were discussed on lkml or lwn? – Gilles May 8 '14 at 4:07
6  
mount --bind /tmp/ /mnt/tmp/; mount -o remount,bind,ro /mnt/tmp/ ... then touch /tmp/a is OK, but touch /mnt/tmp/b gives touch: cannot touch ‘/mnt/tmp/b’: Read-only file system. That works on both Debian 3.13 and kernel.org 3.14.2. So it doesn't just change the whole mount. At least not with recent kernels. – derobert May 8 '14 at 5:46
1  
Presumably the statement that a "Bind mount is just... well... a bind mount." is really important but means nothing to me. I also don't understand why it then works the second time with the remount option. – StrongBad May 8 '14 at 12:00

The proper solution is really to mount it twice. On the command line:

mount -t none -o bind /source/dir /destination/dir
mount -t none -o bind,remount,ro /source/dir /destination/dir

In /etc/fstab:

/source/dir            /destination/dir    none  bind            0 0
/source/dir            /destination/dir    none  remount,bind,ro 0 0

The manual (man mount) states it that way:

   The bind mounts.
          Since Linux 2.4.0 it is possible to remount part of the file hierarchy somewhere else. The call is
                 mount --bind olddir newdir
   [...]
          Note that the filesystem mount options will remain the same as those on the original mount point, and cannot be changed  by  passing  the  -o  option
          along with --bind/--rbind. The mount options can be changed by a separate remount command, for example:
          .
                 mount --bind olddir newdir
                 mount -o remount,ro newdir
          .
          Note  that  behavior  of  the remount operation depends on the /etc/mtab file. The first command stores the 'bind' flag to the /etc/mtab file and the
          second command reads the flag from the file.  If you have a system without the /etc/mtab file or if you explicitly define source and target  for  the
          remount command (then mount(8) does not read /etc/mtab), then you have to use bind flag (or option) for the remount command too. For example:
          .
                 mount --bind olddir newdir
                 mount -o remount,ro,bind olddir newdir
share|improve this answer
    
This does seem to work with at least Ubuntu 14.04 LTS and kernel 3.19.0-51-lowlatency. Nice! – Mikko Rantalainen Jun 2 at 6:42

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.