In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hank Leininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2001-06-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Suppose I have devices /dev/a, /dev/b, /dev/c that contain the
>> /, /usr and /usr/spool filesystems for FOO OS. Now
>> mount /dev/a /mnt -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
>> mount /dev/b /mnt/usr -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
>> mount /dev/c /mnt/usr/spool -o symlink_prefix=/mnt
>
> Cool.
>
> What happens when someone creates new absolute symlinks under /mnt ?
> Will/should the magic /mnt/ header be stripped from any symlink created
> under such a path-translated volume? The answer is probably 'yes', but
> either one violates POLA :(
>
I think the semantics should be these that are used in the old usespace
nfsd for the "link_relative" option. That one had very intuitive semantics
and behaved sanely even if you had insane recursive machine crossmounts
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
