Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> 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.
You have a race there. Also you can't currently directly create a bind mount from userspace as you can only bind from another path point - which you may not be able to access (either by permission failure or because it's not in your mount namespace). David
