From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1951C2BA2B for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 06:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A329E2083E for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 06:45:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725959AbgDKGpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2020 02:45:34 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:46750 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725855AbgDKGpe (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2020 02:45:34 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jN9tS-00Gl7K-Hs; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 06:45:30 +0000 Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 07:45:30 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Aleksa Sarai Cc: Askar Safin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What about adding AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT analogue to openat2? Message-ID: <20200411064530.GL23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1586558501.806374941@f476.i.mail.ru> <20200411060236.swlgw6ymzikgcqxl@yavin.dot.cyphar.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200411060236.swlgw6ymzikgcqxl@yavin.dot.cyphar.com> Sender: linux-api-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 04:02:36PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote: > On 2020-04-11, Askar Safin wrote: > > What about adding stat's AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT analogue to openat2? > > There isn't one. I did intend to add RESOLVE_NO_AUTOMOUNTS after openat2 > was merged -- it's even mentioned in the commit message -- but I haven't > gotten around to it yet. The reason it wasn't added from the outset was > that I wasn't sure if adding it would be as simple as the other > RESOLVE_* flags. > > Note that like all RESOLVE_* flags, it would apply to all components so > it wouldn't be truly analogous with AT_NO_AUTOMOUNT (though as I've > discussed at length on this ML, most people do actually want the > RESOLVE_* semantics). But you can emulate the AT_* ones much more easily > with RESOLVE_* than vice-versa). Er... Not triggering automount on anything but the last component means failing with ENOENT. *All* automount points are empty and are bloody well going to remain such, as far as I'm concerned.