Directory rename semantics.

[Ceri Davies]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:44:27AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 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.
> 
> That would be desirable if we want file system semantics to be a
> property of the OS instead of individual file systems. (Though I don't
> know if there's ever been a conscious decision about this particular
> goal). If so, a knob that toggles between the behaviours should toggle
> it for all file systems. Having them behave differently can create
> problems in migration to and from ZFS.

That's essentially what has just happened, but without the knob.

I'm not really sure whether you agree with the change that was made or
not.

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/efa57923/attachment.pgp