> On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:35 PM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I tend to think that this *should* fail using the new API. The semantics of >> the second mount request are bizarre at best. > > You still have to support existing behaviour lest you break userspace. > I assume the existing behavior is that a bind mount is created? If so, the new mount(8) tool could do it in user code.
