Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:56:10 +0200 From: Giulio Ferro <auryn@zirakzigil.org> To: Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Nate Eldredge <nate@thatsmathematics.com> Subject: Re: ZFS group ownership Message-ID: <4AB0FC8A.3090604@zirakzigil.org> In-Reply-To: <78cb3d3f0909160336m2d1f93dsad4aafb692395a80@mail.gmail.com> References: <4AAB8AD0.5010302@zirakzigil.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0909151507080.8152@zeno.ucsd.edu> <78cb3d3f0909160336m2d1f93dsad4aafb692395a80@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adrian Penisoara wrote: > Is the ownership of the new file decided by the open() syscall or by > the filesystem layer ? > On a superficial lookup through the sources it appears a filesystem > layer choice... > > Which of the following would then be the best option (also taking POLA > into account): > * leave things are they are > * make ZFS under FreeBSD behave the way open(2) describes > * have a new ZFS property govern the behavior and default to one of the above > > Thanks, > Adrian Penisoara > EnterpriseBSD > Thanks all for answering (sorry for the multiple posts, I was tuning my mail server) I believe that on a same freebsd there should be a consistent behavior among different mounts. So in my opinion ZFS should conform to UFS (or UFS to ZFS, if that's desirable). The best thing would be to have a sysctl tunable to choose that (sysv5 / bsd). BSD should be default, since it makes more sense for workgroups...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4AB0FC8A.3090604>