From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 30 17:56:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9D21065672 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964158FC19 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcjc3 with SMTP id jc3so1019781bkc.13 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:56:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eOZz5nK9tm6WAlx3zyhxj9nzcJ077fjXMrW3x/SZACw=; b=w16mkuLid2fBkOOSs+Ohpzvx/PAYo8WuK2Q83RW8FRuyL8RZOI+dpvIHibcWimSo+L quSfLTFSpJz2LuKat6nFSPtMoDzUrX6KKsckUUHLaeDujiAJx5YWxQzq//L6phiI0rnY 39I2499TtH6BzPYxumFmC3wZEhg18irAEAtsrxs0q1oG8vF0kyfRfOMFYmUqOeUhGqxX 5vidld2ie4y7pUiO2HfydfkFFOVjd0onNOuHwajA6bS79sZ2UUvGc6QSviOXMx2r+r/L Kp/kAA9kFR04HTYrT2+02Av8fFGPnHeWD2fXBduzpyaiha+EoRueEx3iny4W9d5Rb0hH 7lVw== Received: by 10.204.12.10 with SMTP id v10mr1327180bkv.1.1333130196638; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:56:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.202.142 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4F746F1E.6090702@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <4F74BCE8.2030802@vangyzen.net> <20120330.151848.41706133.sthaug@nethelp.no> From: Chris Rees Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:06 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mXMC5eDDrMwyfZR8kplj2qQNziA Message-ID: To: "C. P. Ghost" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: Using TMPFS for /tmp and /var/run? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:38 -0000 On 30 March 2012 17:31, C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:18 PM, =A0 wrote: >>> > However, if you always want to use tmpfs instead of stable storage, >>> please do not. =A0Some people expect /tmp to be persistent. =A0This is = why >>> /etc/defaults/rc.conf has clear_tmp_enable=3D"NO". =A0Changing this wou= ld break >>> the POLA. >>> > >>> This is a mistake. >>> >>> The default should be clear_tmp_enable=3D"YES" >>> if only to uncover those broken configurations that expect /tmp to be >>> persistent. >> >> If you want to break POLA and make a lot of people angry, sure. >> Otherwise no. > > I couldn't agree more. Not clearing /tmp on reboot has been > the norm for way too long and it is too late to change now. > It's not just POLA, it also involves deleting data of unaware > users, and that should be avoided. > > Anyone willing to change policy w.r.t. /tmp can do so on their > own machines. Nothing is preventing them from doing so. > But by changing defaults, one should err on the side of > caution and remain conservative, IMHO. >From man hier: /tmp/ temporary files that are not guaranteed to persist across system reboots This assumption that people often make 'People will be astonished by this'-- I would like to have someone speak up and actually say "Yes, I use *temporary* directories for long-term storage" rather than the assumption that they are around. Software that assumes this should be fixed, and it won't be until the bug is exposed (I'll look at eaccelerator-- it probably should store its cache in /var/db). Maintaining the status quo because of some hypothetical scenario isn't really productive. Chris