Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

[Pavel Machek]

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature