On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:28:12PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Sigh... I wish it hadn't been an English-speaking maillist; mat is hard to > translate properly... Argh, undecency is pretty useful /most of the time/frequently/ > OK, let me try for a printable version: suppose we replace that d_path() > call with dentry_path() and leave everything else as is; what exactly > will be broken and how will it break? I didn't understand you at first. Replacing it with dentry_path() will not break anything. It was not supposed fs should care about chroot for this case - every application (including chrooted) writes into own namespace, so if it changes root, it is on its own... > > When object was written via remounted path, then it is a problem for > > those who made a setup - this ugly hack only 'works' in specially > > crafted environment, which provides its pros and requires fair price of > > cons. > > _What_ remounted path? I'm not talking about bindings at all... I believe you will? Actually if this useful hack is so much a PITA I will drop it. Or fix with dentry_path() instead. It doesn't really deserve _that_ much. -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
