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 :)