Directory rename semantics.

[Ivan Voras]

Ceri Davies wrote:
> 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.

I think it has something to do with the percentage of "our" users
running UFS vs ZFS :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20081107/3bc1a8a0/signature.pgp