Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 17:10:40 +0100
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20170430043822.GE27790@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)

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?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
  - From: Andy Lutomirski

References:
- new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
  - From: Al Viro
- Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
  - From: Andy Lutomirski
- Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
  - From: Al Viro
- Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
  - From: Matthew Wilcox

Prev by Date: [PATCH] fuse: Use kmalloc_array() in three functions
Next by Date: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
Previous by thread: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
Next by thread: Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Ext4 Filesystem] [Union Filesystem] [Filesystem Testing] [Ceph Users] [Ecryptfs] [AutoFS] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [Security] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux Cachefs] [Reiser Filesystem] [Linux RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper] [CEPH Development]

Powered by Linux