Re: symlink_prefix

[Ton Hospel]

In article <[e-mail]>,
	Hank Leininger <[e-mail]> writes:
> On 2001-06-03, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
>> Suppose I have devices /dev/a, /dev/b, /dev/c that contain the
>> /, /usr and /usr/spool filesystems 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 :(
> 
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