Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:10 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:18 -0800, Mattias Nissler wrote: >> I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but >> here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to >>

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:10 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:18 -0800, Mattias Nissler wrote: >> I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but >> here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to >> reconsider the patch: >> >> The BSDs

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:18 -0800, Mattias Nissler wrote: > I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but > here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to > reconsider the patch: > > The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is > called

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 13:18 -0800, Mattias Nissler wrote: > I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but > here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to > reconsider the patch: > > The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is > called

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-11-16 16:18, Mattias Nissler wrote: >> >> I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's >> some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider >> the patch: >>

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-11-16 16:18, Mattias Nissler wrote: >> >> I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's >> some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider >> the patch: >> >> The BSDs already

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On 2016-11-16 16:18, Mattias Nissler wrote: I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider the patch: The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is called "nosymfollow" there:

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

On 2016-11-16 16:18, Mattias Nissler wrote: I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider the patch: The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is called "nosymfollow" there:

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider the patch: The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is called "nosymfollow" there:

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

I understand that silence suggests there's little interest, but here's some new information I discovered today that may justify to reconsider the patch: The BSDs already have exactly what I propose, the mount option is called "nosymfollow" there:

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

Friendly ping - does this version of the patch have any chance on getting included in mainline? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Mattias Nissler wrote: > For mounts that have the new "nosymlinks" option, don't follow > symlinks when resolving paths. The new option is

Re: [PATCH v2] Add a "nosymlinks" mount option.

Friendly ping - does this version of the patch have any chance on getting included in mainline? On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Mattias Nissler wrote: > For mounts that have the new "nosymlinks" option, don't follow > symlinks when resolving paths. The new option is similar in spirit to > the