Reuben ua Bríġ <u5644...@anu.edu.au> wrote: > > Probably because testing for the situation would be an unreliable > > race. BTW, you explain the ssh behaviour incorrectly. It does not > > warn. It fails, and refuses to continue. Failure is not permitted > > for the mount system call in this circumstance, and the entire path > > upwards cannot be verified atomically. A racy warning also requires > > warning to stderr. There are lots of complex considereations to your > > handwavy propose. > > i would think the mount(8) command could examine each node of the path > before the actual mount point and check that they are owned root:wheel > and o-w. only root and wheel could run the race then.
I wonder why noone implimented such checks like that in the last 30 years. Might be because it breaks more than it fixes.
