lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 09:52:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 09:38:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds more like AT_NO_ESCAPE ... or AT_BELOW, or something.
> >
> > I considered AT_ROACH_MOTEL at one point... Another interesting
> > question is whether EXDEV would've been better than ELOOP.
> > Opinions?
>
> In support of my homeland, I propose AT_HOTEL_CALIFORNIA.
>
> How about EXDEV for crossing a mountpoint and ELOOP for absolute
> symlinks or invalid ..? (Is there a technical reason why the same AT_
> flag should trigger both cases?)

You do realize that mount --bind can do everything absolute symlinks could,
right? And absolute symlinks most likely do lead to (or at least through)
a different fs...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-01 07:15    [W:0.058 / U:1.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site