symlink_prefix
Quoted 5 lines · On 2001-06-03, [email protected] wrote:
Suppose I have devices
/dev/a,/dev/b,/dev/cthat contain the /, /usr and/usr/spoolfilesystems for FOO OS. Now
mount/dev/a/mnt -o symlink_prefix=/mnt mount/dev/b/mnt/usr-o symlink_prefix=/mnt mount/dev/c/mnt/usr/spool-o symlink_prefix=/mnt
Cool.
What happens when someone creates new absolute symlinks under /mnt ? Will/should the magic /mnt/ header be stripped from any symlink created under such a path-translated volume? The answer is probably 'yes', but either one violates POLA :(
--
Hank Leininger <[email protected]>
In article <[email protected]>,
Quoted 8 lines · Hank Leininger
Quoted 5 lines · On 2001-06-03, [email protected] wrote:
Suppose I have devices
/dev/a,/dev/b,/dev/cthat contain the /, /usr and/usr/spoolfilesystems for FOO OS. Now
mount/dev/a/mnt -o symlink_prefix=/mnt mount/dev/b/mnt/usr-o symlink_prefix=/mnt mount/dev/c/mnt/usr/spool-o symlink_prefix=/mnt
Quoted 7 lines
Cool.
What happens when someone creates new absolute symlinks under /mnt ? Will/should the magic
/mnt/header be stripped from any symlink created under such a path-translated volume? The answer is probably 'yes', but either one violates POLA :(
I think the semantics should be these that are used in the old usespace nfsd for the "link_relative" option. That one had very intuitive semantics and behaved sanely even if you had insane recursive machine crossmounts