Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 May 2017 21:57:40 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS |
| |
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 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |