Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:10:22 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> To: Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Directory rename semantics. Message-ID: <20081107111022.GB34757@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20081106195558.GG2281@submonkey.net> References: <20081027193545.GA95872@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU> <20081106192829.GA98742@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081106195558.GG2281@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:55:58PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:28:29PM +0100, Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote:
> > After discussion about this with rwatson and pjd, I decided to do
> > the opposite: change ZFS behaviour to match UFS. Reason is simple:
> > this is security, and we want to be conservative here. It's impossible
> > to make sure this change wouldn't cause security problems.
>
> Perhaps it would have been better to either do nothing or create a zfs
> property that toggled this behaviour so that people who expect ZFS to
> behave a certain way get it. I'm not sure why we would want all
> filesystems to behave the same way, to be honest.
I'm essentially unhappy here that a change to UFS which is local to us
was considered important enough to ask -arch about, while ZFS which
exists on at least two other operating systems was deemed fine to go
ahead and change without review.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD4DBQFJFCIeocfcwTS3JF8RAgHLAJwKIP7ffaEwuCquU8w9vaA5erbRNQCY6dio
Kcmqqxq5bEzjvbldwjx2LA==
=ZwCD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081107111022.GB34757>