Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:01:46 +0100 From: Gavin Atkinson <gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/geom/label g_label.c Message-ID: <1124182906.2492.4.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20050816081644.GA3944@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <200508120005.j7C05ARc090857@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050815053757.GB2660@green.homeunix.org> <20050815070033.GA8368@garage.freebsd.pl> <20050815125814.GC2660@green.homeunix.org> <20050816081644.GA3944@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 10:16 +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0400, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > +> > +> Why would we want to prevent the usage of a specific directory structure > +> > +> to represent GEOM's namespace, if that's what the administrator wants? > +> > > +> > If the label name is 'foo/bar' it doesn't seems right to create 'foo' > +> > directory and provider 'bar' inside. The label could be also '../random' > +> > or something like this and I want to save administrator/user nasty surprises > +> > when he inserts some random CD. > +> > +> I like the idea of rejecting the latter, but what is the harm of the first > +> case? If I call something "foo/bar", I'll be surprised to find out that > +> it's located at /dev/foo_bar... my preference would be for the name to be > +> rejected completely instead of remapped, if a '/' is to not be allowed, > +> but that's my own. > > # cd /dev/foo > # rm/anything bar > > There was no label 'bar', right. Anyway. Instead of rejecting labels with > '/' I can print a warning on the console that a bit different label will be > used. What do you say? FWIW, I would prefer to see this backed out, or at least not MFC'd. I'm using labels containing slashes as a way to split a large number of devices up in /dev, and MFCing this would presumably break my setup. As far as I can tell, if somebody has used a "/" in a label, then that was an administrative decision, and if possible we should obey that. Is there any technical reason why a "/" cannot be allowed? I do agree that filtering out any occurances of "../" is a good idea. Gavin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1124182906.2492.4.camel>