Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

From	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS
Date	2017-05-02 22:00 +0200
Message-ID	<tCM7M-2F9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tmMOt-wC-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote:
> 	Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> 	* no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)

Returning error or returning the object that should be hidden by the
mount?

I believe the second option would be a bit dangerous...
								Pavel
								
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-05-02 22:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-05-02 22:50 +0200

csiph-web