> So your in favour of a bind mount behaving in a sense like a chroot. > > This I think I can do that but that's not how bind mount behaviour is > defined in mount(8). Hence the discussion. > > What I would have trouble doing is maintaining two distinct trees > of mount points which is in line with the definition. > > And there's also the question of recursive bind mounts????
You can always say in the manual: don't do that, or expect the unexpected! > Oh yes Miklos, we haven't even started talking about submounts, each with > its own map! Sorry, I'm sure you have enough to do already but I thought > you might like to follow the discussion a little further. OK. Why are submounts special? Miklos _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
