Re: new ...at() flag: AT_NO_JUMPS

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 09:38:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
>> It sounds more like AT_NO_ESCAPE ... or AT_BELOW, or something.
>
> I considered AT_ROACH_MOTEL at one point...  Another interesting
> question is whether EXDEV would've been better than ELOOP.
> Opinions?

In support of my homeland, I propose AT_HOTEL_CALIFORNIA.

How about EXDEV for crossing a mountpoint and ELOOP for absolute
symlinks or invalid ..?  (Is there a technical reason why the same AT_
flag should trigger both cases?)

--Andy