On 2005-08-10T12:05:11, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> > What would a syntax look like which in your opinion does not remove
> > totally valid symlink targets for magic mushroom bullshit? Prefix with
> > // (which, according to POSIX, allows for implementation-defined
> > behaviour)? Something else, not allowed in a regular pathname?
> None. just don't do it. Use bindmount, they're cheap and have sane
> defined semtantics.
So for every directoy hiearchy on a shared filesystem, each user needs
to have the complete list of bindmounts needed, and automatically resync
that across all nodes when a new one is added or removed? And then have
that executed by root, because a regular user can't?
Sure. Very cheap and sane. I'm buying.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <[email protected]>
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |