Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:50:16 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Directory rename semantics. Message-ID: <gf1a1k$gbo$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20081107111022.GB34757@submonkey.net> References: <20081027193545.GA95872@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU> <20081106192829.GA98742@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081106195558.GG2281@submonkey.net> <20081107111022.GB34757@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Ceri Davies wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:55:58PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 08:28:29PM +0100, Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote: >>> After discussion about this with rwatson and pjd, I decided to do >>> the opposite: change ZFS behaviour to match UFS. Reason is simple: >>> this is security, and we want to be conservative here. It's impossible >>> to make sure this change wouldn't cause security problems. >> Perhaps it would have been better to either do nothing or create a zfs >> property that toggled this behaviour so that people who expect ZFS to >> behave a certain way get it. I'm not sure why we would want all >> filesystems to behave the same way, to be honest. > > I'm essentially unhappy here that a change to UFS which is local to us > was considered important enough to ask -arch about, while ZFS which > exists on at least two other operating systems was deemed fine to go > ahead and change without review. I think it has something to do with the percentage of "our" users running UFS vs ZFS :) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJFCt4ldnAQVacBcgRAqPxAJ9zjc49buG3Iv2Toy5AleuE1rirDQCg8LR6 pDji0HVqc14vlDQP2f3UF8c= =UkyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gf1a1k$gbo$1>