Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:31:24 +0100 From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> To: Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com> Cc: Bas Smeelen <b.smeelen@ose.nl>, Mike Jakubik <mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO Message-ID: <20121102183123.GA22755@dft-labs.eu> In-Reply-To: <50940276.5030306@ateamsystems.com> References: <5093F934.7050306@ose.nl> <5093FD3D.3080201@ateamsystems.com> <1351876381.2657.1.camel@mjakubik.localdomain> <50940276.5030306@ateamsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:27:18AM +0700, Adam Strohl wrote: > On 11/3/2012 0:13, Mike Jakubik wrote: > >You can disable SU+J after installing, though it would be nice if the > >installer gave you a choice. > > This assumes that you know about this flaw, which most people do not. > > I didn't until I discovered it by panic-ing a perfectly fine running > server. Getting burned by a known bug like this shouldn't be "SOP" > for users of FreeBSD. > Currently when you try to take a snapshot, the kernel checks whether SUJ is enabled on specified mount-point, and if yes it returns EOPNOTSUPP. See this commit (MFCed as r230725): http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=230250 So it's not that bad. > If anything it should be turned off by default, and people can turn > it on if they want given the landmine it plants. If they know how > to turn it on they're much more likely to be aware of the issue. > That being said, sure, you may run into another bugs, but if SUJ was enabled by default I guess it was felt that it works well enough (and in case of known bugs like problems with snapshots just bails out early). -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121102183123.GA22755>