On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> There is a flaw in this argument. If I am told that mount --bind
> does just about what I want to have as a feature then these
> applictions must have the same problems already (if I mount
> braindead). So an implementation in fs cannot do any _additional_
> damage to these applications, or not?
There is a flaw in this flaw. :-)
/tmp# mkdir a
/tmp# mkdir a/b
/tmp# mkdir a/c
/tmp# mount --bind a a/b
/tmp# ls a
b c
/tmp# ls a/b
b c
/tmp# ls a/b/b/
/tmp#
It is enlightening in this regard to consider the difference between
using unix /etc/fstab and Hurd translators to manage your namespace.
In preparing this example, I discovered that find and ls -R already
have hard-link cycle "protection" built in, so they are broken in
the presence of bind mounts. :-(
Andrew
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:26 EST