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

Compare the following:

mount -t proc none ./my_chroot/proc


chroot ./mychroot mount -t proc none /proc
share|improve this question
There's also mount -B (bind) option, commonly used to bind /dev and /proc into chroot jail. – alex Nov 11 '10 at 12:24
up vote 1 down vote accepted

There are no differences with respect to the underlying kernel state.

There is a minor difference with respect to the operation of the mount command: it keeps track of its actions in /etc/mtab, so running mount under chroot will update a different mtab file.

You could also use mount --bind /proc ./my_chroot/proc. As far as I know, there is no practical difference between that and mount -t proc none ./mychroot/proc: you can mount the proc filesystem as many times as you like, and mount options are ignored. mount --bind will prevent you from unmounting the filesystem on /proc outside the chroot, but that should never happen anyway.

As an aside, I would recommend mount -t proc proc …/proc because seeing proc in the device field in a mtab or in /proc/mounts is clearer than seeing none.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.