Docker – Permission denied on accessing host directory in Docker

dockerfedorafile-permissionsmountpermission-denied

Summary

I am trying to mount a host directory in Docker, but then I can not access it from within the container, even if the access permissions look good.

Details

I am doing

sudo docker run -i -v /data1/Downloads:/Downloads ubuntu bash

and then

ls -al

It gives me:

total 8892
drwxr-xr-x.  23 root root    4096 Jun 18 14:34 .
drwxr-xr-x.  23 root root    4096 Jun 18 14:34 ..
-rwxr-xr-x.   1 root root       0 Jun 18 14:34 .dockerenv
-rwx------.   1 root root 9014486 Jun 17 22:09 .dockerinit
drwxrwxr-x.  18 1000 1000   12288 Jun 16 11:40 Downloads
drwxr-xr-x.   2 root root    4096 Jan 29 18:10 bin
drwxr-xr-x.   2 root root    4096 Apr 19  2012 boot
drwxr-xr-x.   4 root root     340 Jun 18 14:34 dev
drwxr-xr-x.  56 root root    4096 Jun 18 14:34 etc
drwxr-xr-x.   2 root root    4096 Apr 19  2012 home

and a lot more lines like that (I think this is the relevant portion).

If I do

cd /Downloads
ls

the result is

ls: cannot open directory .: Permission denied

The host is Fedora 20, with Docker 1.0.0 and go1.2.2.

What is going wrong?

Best Answer

See this Project Atomic blog post about Volumes and SELinux for the full story.

Specifically:

This got easier recently since Docker finally merged a patch which will be showing up in docker-1.7 (We have been carrying the patch in docker-1.6 on RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora).

This patch adds support for "z" and "Z" as options on the volume mounts (-v).

For example:
docker run -v /var/db:/var/db:z rhel7 /bin/sh
Will automatically do the chcon -Rt svirt_sandbox_file_t /var/db described in the man page.

Even better, you can use Z.
docker run -v /var/db:/var/db:Z rhel7 /bin/sh
This will label the content inside the container with the exact MCS label that the container will run with, basically it runs chcon -Rt svirt_sandbox_file_t -l s0:c1,c2 /var/db where s0:c1,c2 differs for each container.

Related Solutions

Bash – How to exclude all “permission denied” messages from “find”

Use:

find . 2>/dev/null > files_and_folders

This hides not just the Permission denied errors, of course, but all error messages.

If you really want to keep other possible errors, such as too many hops on a symlink, but not the permission denied ones, then you'd probably have to take a flying guess that you don't have many files called 'permission denied' and try:

find . 2>&1 | grep -v 'Permission denied' > files_and_folders

If you strictly want to filter just standard error, you can use the more elaborate construction:

find . 2>&1 > files_and_folders | grep -v 'Permission denied' >&2

The I/O redirection on the find command is: 2>&1 > files_and_folders |. The pipe redirects standard output to the grep command and is applied first. The 2>&1 sends standard error to the same place as standard output (the pipe). The > files_and_folders sends standard output (but not standard error) to a file. The net result is that messages written to standard error are sent down the pipe and the regular output of find is written to the file. The grep filters the standard output (you can decide how selective you want it to be, and may have to change the spelling depending on locale and O/S) and the final >&2 means that the surviving error messages (written to standard output) go to standard error once more. The final redirection could be regarded as optional at the terminal, but would be a very good idea to use it in a script so that error messages appear on standard error.

There are endless variations on this theme, depending on what you want to do. This will work on any variant of Unix with any Bourne shell derivative (Bash, Korn, …) and any POSIX-compliant version of find.

If you wish to adapt to the specific version of find you have on your system, there may be alternative options available. GNU find in particular has a myriad options not available in other versions — see the currently accepted answer for one such set of options.

Docker – How is Docker different from a virtual machine

Docker originally used LinuX Containers (LXC), but later switched to runC (formerly known as libcontainer), which runs in the same operating system as its host. This allows it to share a lot of the host operating system resources. Also, it uses a layered filesystem (AuFS) and manages networking.

AuFS is a layered file system, so you can have a read only part and a write part which are merged together. One could have the common parts of the operating system as read only (and shared amongst all of your containers) and then give each container its own mount for writing.

So, let's say you have a 1 GB container image; if you wanted to use a full VM, you would need to have 1 GB x number of VMs you want. With Docker and AuFS you can share the bulk of the 1 GB between all the containers and if you have 1000 containers you still might only have a little over 1 GB of space for the containers OS (assuming they are all running the same OS image).

A full virtualized system gets its own set of resources allocated to it, and does minimal sharing. You get more isolation, but it is much heavier (requires more resources). With Docker you get less isolation, but the containers are lightweight (require fewer resources). So you could easily run thousands of containers on a host, and it won't even blink. Try doing that with Xen, and unless you have a really big host, I don't think it is possible.

A full virtualized system usually takes minutes to start, whereas Docker/LXC/runC containers take seconds, and often even less than a second.

There are pros and cons for each type of virtualized system. If you want full isolation with guaranteed resources, a full VM is the way to go. If you just want to isolate processes from each other and want to run a ton of them on a reasonably sized host, then Docker/LXC/runC seems to be the way to go.

For more information, check out this set of blog posts which do a good job of explaining how LXC works.

Why is deploying software to a docker image (if that's the right term) easier than simply deploying to a consistent production environment?

Deploying a consistent production environment is easier said than done. Even if you use tools like Chef and Puppet, there are always OS updates and other things that change between hosts and environments.

Docker gives you the ability to snapshot the OS into a shared image, and makes it easy to deploy on other Docker hosts. Locally, dev, qa, prod, etc.: all the same image. Sure you can do this with other tools, but not nearly as easily or fast.

This is great for testing; let's say you have thousands of tests that need to connect to a database, and each test needs a pristine copy of the database and will make changes to the data. The classic approach to this is to reset the database after every test either with custom code or with tools like Flyway - this can be very time-consuming and means that tests must be run serially. However, with Docker you could create an image of your database and run up one instance per test, and then run all the tests in parallel since you know they will all be running against the same snapshot of the database. Since the tests are running in parallel and in Docker containers they could run all on the same box at the same time and should finish much faster. Try doing that with a full VM.

From comments...

Interesting! I suppose I'm still confused by the notion of "snapshot[ting] the OS". How does one do that without, well, making an image of the OS?

Well, let's see if I can explain. You start with a base image, and then make your changes, and commit those changes using docker, and it creates an image. This image contains only the differences from the base. When you want to run your image, you also need the base, and it layers your image on top of the base using a layered file system: as mentioned above, Docker uses AuFS. AuFS merges the different layers together and you get what you want; you just need to run it. You can keep adding more and more images (layers) and it will continue to only save the diffs. Since Docker typically builds on top of ready-made images from a registry, you rarely have to "snapshot" the whole OS yourself.