Subject: Re: usermount semantics changed... Why?
To: None <>
From: Peter Seebach <>
List: current-users
Date: 06/10/2007 12:45:36
In message <>, Antti Kantee writes:
>That snipped looks like it requires MNT_NOEXEC only if you are mounting on
>a file system which already has MNT_NOEXEC set in vp->v_mount->mnt_flags.
>noexec is not generally required for user mounts.  My guess is it's to
>prevent the user gaining access to an exec-worthy file system in case
>e.g. /home is noexec.

Oh, good point.

Nonetheless, it is certainly a change that this is now enforced by kauth,
rather than being silently added by the syscall.