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...
