On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote:
> > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:57:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote:
> > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> > * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind
On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote:
> Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
Returning error or returning the object that should be
On Sun 2017-03-19 17:24:15, Al Viro wrote:
> Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
Returning error or returning the object that should be
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:46:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> > * no
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 06:46:01PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> > potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> > * no mountpoint crossings allowed
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
> * only relative
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
> potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
> * no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
> * only relative symlinks traversals are
Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
* no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
* only relative symlinks traversals are allowed
* starting point acts as a chroot boundary
Bringing back an old conversation - what do you think about the
potential usefulness of the following ...at() option:
* no mountpoint crossings allowed (mount --bind included)
* only relative symlinks traversals are allowed
* starting point acts as a chroot boundary
10 matches
Mail list logo