17 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archRe: Directory rename semantics.| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Edward Tomasz Napierala | Oct 27, 2008 12:35 pm | |
| David Schultz | Oct 28, 2008 9:18 am | |
| Andriy Gapon | Oct 29, 2008 5:37 am | |
| Coleman Kane | Oct 30, 2008 12:16 pm | |
| Edward Tomasz Napierala | Nov 6, 2008 11:25 am | |
| Ceri Davies | Nov 6, 2008 11:55 am | |
| Ivan Voras | Nov 7, 2008 2:44 am | |
| Ceri Davies | Nov 7, 2008 3:09 am | |
| Ivan Voras | Nov 7, 2008 3:49 am | |
| Ceri Davies | Nov 7, 2008 4:32 am | |
| Ivan Voras | Nov 7, 2008 6:36 am | |
| Edward Tomasz Napierala | Nov 7, 2008 7:02 am | |
| David Schultz | Nov 7, 2008 8:33 am | |
| Ivan Voras | Nov 7, 2008 10:13 am | |
| Ceri Davies | Nov 7, 2008 1:11 pm | |
| Ivan Voras | Nov 7, 2008 1:26 pm | |
| Pawel Jakub Dawidek | Nov 12, 2008 12:26 am |
| Subject: | Re: Directory rename semantics. | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Ivan Voras (ivo...@freebsd.org) | |
| Date: | Nov 7, 2008 3:49:49 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
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 :)