Which TWO statements are true regarding Podman bind mounts? (Choose TWO)
A bind mount maps an existing absolute host path, such as /home/user/data, straight into the container's filesystem namespace, rather than creating an isolated volume. This satisfies the stem's requirement of linking a specific host path directly into the container filesystem.
Why this answer
Option D is correct because a Podman bind mount maps an explicit host directory or file path directly into a container path (e.g., -v /host/dir:/container/dir), unlike named volumes that Podman manages under its storage root. Option E is correct because bind mounts expose the host filesystem's ownership, mode bits, and SELinux labels to the container, so permission denials or SELinux AVC denials on the host path directly affect container access (often requiring :z/:Z relabeling or correct UID/GID mapping). Option A is wrong because bind mounts are host paths that persist after the container is removed; only anonymous volumes may be cleaned up.
Option B is wrong because bind mounts can be mounted read-only using the :ro (or :ro,Z) mount option. Option C is wrong because that describes Podman-managed named volumes stored in Podman's volume database, not bind mounts, which reference host paths directly.
Exam trap
EX188 often tests the distinction between bind mounts (host-path-referenced, permission/SELinux-sensitive, persistent) and named volumes (Podman-managed, stored in the volume database) — candidates who conflate the two pick options describing volume behavior for bind mounts.