Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:03:20 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> To: "'Chuck Swiger'" <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: 'FreeBSD -' <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: One or Four? Message-ID: <021301ccedd0$b9c86400$2d592c00$@fisglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <290E977C-E361-4C7D-8F1E-C1D6D03BAD63@mac.com> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <20120217234623.cf7e169c.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120217225329.GB30014@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <021101ccedc9$89445cf0$9bcd16d0$@fisglobal.com> <290E977C-E361-4C7D-8F1E-C1D6D03BAD63@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:cswiger@mac.com] > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:56 PM > To: Devin Teske > Cc: FreeBSD - > Subject: Re: One or Four? > > On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Devin Teske wrote: > > a. A security issue > > > > /tmp is by-default out-of-the-box world-writable (perms 1777). > > Yes. It works as intended even when /tmp is part of a single root partition; > although mounting /tmp as a RAM- or swap-based tmpfs filesystem might be > better for many situations. > > > Making this world-writable bucket part of "/" seems silly both for Desktops and > Servers alike. > > You're welcome to your opinion. However, I suspect you're expecting FreeBSD > systems to always be partitioned and administered by knowledgeable BSD Unix > sysadmins, and those are not always so readily available as one might assume. > > > b. A nuisance > > > > As "Da Rock" points out, ... recovering your system from a > > file-system-full-event when using "single-/" is just as difficult regardless of > > Desktop versus Server. Having "/tmp" alleviates the difficulty. > > It would if /tmp was mounted on a disk partition, and if it also happened to be > where space was being consumed. Actually, what I meant to say was: If you have only "single-/" and your filesystem becomes full, having a separate "/tmp" on the same physical medium can alleviate the issue of "having no space to work" because you can mount "/tmp" (as the odds of both "/" and "/tmp" filling up simultaneously and both becoming 100%-full is far-less likely to occur than having a single partition fill up to max all). Thus, having a "/ + /tmp" is infinitely wiser than "single-/ without /tmp (or any partition for that matter)". The argument not necessarily being in favor of "/tmp", but being dis-favorable against any scheme that involves only one partition which can blindly be filled and leave the user (at least in a single-disk scenario) no free space to do anything once-full. This is somewhat different than what you were referring to, which is that having "/tmp" simply for the sake of not allowing others to fill your system. Rather, I'm arguing that "/tmp" also saves you by giving you somewhere to work if/when you *DO* fill your "/". > /var/log and /home tend to be more likely > locations in my experience, but YMMV. -- Devin _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?021301ccedd0$b9c86400$2d592c00$>