Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS

[Al Viro]

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...