I'm trying to mount a simple NFS share, but it keeps saying "operation not permitted".

The NFS server has the following share.


The share seems to be active for both clients.

# exportfs -s

The client can see the share.

$ sudo showmount -e
Export list for
/mnt/share_dir 's mount destination:

# ls -lah /mnt/share_dir/
total 8.0K
drwxr-xr-x 2 me me 4.0K Aug 28 19:21 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4.0K Aug 28 19:21 ..

When I try to mount the share, the client says "operation not permitted" with either nfs or nfs4 type.

$ sudo mount -vvv -t nfs  /mnt/share_dir
mount.nfs: timeout set for Sun Aug 28 21:56:03 2022
mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4.2,addr=,clientaddr='
mount.nfs: mount(2): Operation not permitted
mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'addr='
mount.nfs: prog 100003, trying vers=3, prot=6
mount.nfs: trying prog 100003 vers 3 prot TCP port 2049
mount.nfs: prog 100005, trying vers=3, prot=17
mount.nfs: trying prog 100005 vers 3 prot UDP port 46169
mount.nfs: mount(2): Operation not permitted
mount.nfs: Operation not permitted

I've set fsid=0 and insecure to the export options, but it didn't work.

RPCInfo from the client's side:

# rpcinfo -p
   program vers proto   port  service
    100000    4   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    3   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    4   udp    111  portmapper
    100000    3   udp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
    100005    1   udp  59675  mountd
    100005    1   tcp  37269  mountd
    100005    2   udp  41354  mountd
    100005    2   tcp  38377  mountd
    100005    3   udp  46169  mountd
    100005    3   tcp  39211  mountd
    100003    3   tcp   2049  nfs
    100003    4   tcp   2049  nfs
    100227    3   tcp   2049
    100003    3   udp   2049  nfs
    100227    3   udp   2049
    100021    1   udp  46745  nlockmgr
    100021    3   udp  46745  nlockmgr
    100021    4   udp  46745  nlockmgr
    100021    1   tcp  42571  nlockmgr
    100021    3   tcp  42571  nlockmgr
    100021    4   tcp  42571  nlockmgr

Using another client,, I was able to mount that share with no issues.

I can not see any issue or misconfiguration, and could not find a fix anywhere. There's no firewall in the way and both server and client are using Debian 11.

Any idea of what's going on?

  • From your showmount /mnt/backup/backup1/Videos ... to me /mnt/backup/backup1/Videos and don't look all that similar ... ?
    – tink
    Aug 29, 2022 at 3:05
  • Oh sorry. It is the same. I changed the names for ease of reading... and typing.
    – markfree
    Aug 30, 2022 at 11:03
  • 1. mount -r ...? i.e. try mounting read-only since that's how it's exported. 2. You've shown us the client error messages; what does the server tell you? Aug 30, 2022 at 20:20
  • @roaima, using the -r option outputs the same error. I could not find a specific NFS log file. I could only find some syslog messages where Systemd starts the NFS deamon. Something like: kernel: [ 38.121183] FS-Cache: Loaded --- next line --- kernel: [ 38.135725] FS-Cache: Netfs 'nfs' registered for caching
    – markfree
    Aug 31, 2022 at 1:53

2 Answers 2


I found the issue.

Basically, I've created a Debian unprivileged container in Proxmox. That means NFS is unavailable. Until now, I was unaware of that restriction while using Proxmox containers.

To be able to access the NFS share within that container, I followed some suggestions from Proxmox forum.

First, I mounted the NFS share in the Proxmox host (no issues there). Then, in Proxmox, I created a "bind mount" to bind that NFS partition to my container.

# pct set 903 -mp0 /mnt/host_dir,mp=/mnt/guest_dir

I'm not sure this is the best approach, but now I can access that NFS share from within the container.

Another possibility is to recreate the container with privilege and NFS enabled.

  • One point to keep in mind - this command should be applied when container with ID 903 is off, otherwise it will fail
    – Max L
    Mar 24 at 14:13

I use RHEL 7.9, and for what it's worth I am disappointed with NFS 22 years into the 21st century....

my experience is if you edit /etc/nfs.conf or /etc/sysconfig/nfs then the mount often defers for version 3. For me, again in RHEL 7.9 I can't speak for other distributions, to get NFS v4.1 working I must not change anything in either of these two files, and then at best only v4.1 will work; I have never been able to get NFS v4.2 to work even though it is listed in /etc/nfs.conf.

So, make sure between your nfs server and client, all the details within /etc/nfs.conf and /etc/sysconfig/nfs match, the things like mountd and statd port numbers... by default it should all inherently happen under port 2049 for NFS4. If there are port number discrepancies between the nfs server and client, that will prevent the mount from happening.

for reference, here is the bare minimum needed:

on nfs server in /etc/exports have /bkup *(rw,no_root_squash) then do exportfs -av followed by exportfs -s to validate.

on nfs client a simple mount /bkup should mount {change ip address to match your nfs server, and folder name accordingly}.

also do a service firewalld stop along with a setenforce 0 to turn off the firewall and turn off selinux, respectively. I don't think selinux typically prevents nfs, but one step at a time to get mount working... what I've mentioned here has always gotten nfs to at least work. hope that helps.

  • Both systems are using Debian 11. Also, there's no SELinix and no FirewallD. I've checked /etc/default/nfs-common file and both server and client are equal with no options set. On the server side, /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server is pretty much default.
    – markfree
    Aug 31, 2022 at 1:45
  • There's no /etc/nfs.conf or /etc/sysconfig/nfs either.
    – markfree
    Aug 31, 2022 at 2:47
  • so it seems Debian implements NFS in a different manner... than what I know of from using RHEL/CentOS, not sure how else I could help other than say look for a debian specific question/answer site for help
    – ron
    Sep 1, 2022 at 13:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .