On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 09:52:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > > In support of my homeland, I propose AT_HOTEL_CALIFORNIA. > > How about EXDEV for crossing a mountpoint and ELOOP for absolute > symlinks or invalid ..? (Is there a technical reason why the same AT_ > flag should trigger both cases?) You do realize that mount --bind can do everything absolute symlinks could, right? And absolute symlinks most likely do lead to (or at least through) a different fs...
