Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1634595 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1634595 — Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

[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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1634618

On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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?

Error, obviously - as clearly said a few lines below...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web