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
