Directory rename semantics.

Ceri Davies ceri at submonkey.net
Fri Nov 7 03:10:25 PST 2008


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.

Ceri
-- 
That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all.
                                                  -- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20081107/a4398441/attachment.pgp


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list