From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751242AbdEBT5s (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2017 15:57:48 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:33882 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049AbdEBT5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 May 2017 15:57:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 21:57:40 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] AT_NO_JUMPS/LOOKUP_NO_JUMPS Message-ID: <20170502195740.GA4427@amd> References: <20170319172414.GT29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170319172414.GT29622@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 =09 --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlkI5LQACgkQMOfwapXb+vLRKQCcCyJw+OTKAXZCM5JWxNIY2Ukv HKUAoMSN5qZwV/MtrNpxu0lIYCu3SQzn =NxSQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1--