Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)

• Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Cryptography in the kernel (was: Re: Linux 2.5 / 2.6 TODO (preliminary))"
• Previous message: Francis GALIEGUE: "Re: SAK"
• In reply to: Pavel Kankovsky: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Pavel Kankovsky wrote:

> Conclusion: I do not think it is responsible to introduce such a hazardous
> feature without giving the rest of the world a reasonable amount of time
> to adapt.

I agree. Is their strong user demand for this, or are we doing it "just
because we can"? If the latter then I suggest we keep the feature but
restore sys_mount() such that the first line is "if
!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) :-)

Cheers
Chris

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Cryptography in the kernel (was: Re: Linux 2.5 / 2.6 TODO (preliminary))"
• Previous message: Francis GALIEGUE: "Re: SAK"
• In reply to: Pavel Kankovsky: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: Loopback (dir->dir) mounting (NOT -o loop)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:14 EST