Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:19:59 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: sos@FreeBSD.dk Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch Message-ID: <346B7D0F.446B9B3D@whistle.com> References: <199711132135.WAA00279@sos.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
S?ren Schmidt wrote:
>
> In reply to Julian Elischer who wrote:
> > I'd like to move this to 2.2.x
> >
> > It is all hidden behind #ifdef SUIDDIR
> > so I can guarantee that it won't BREAK anything.
> >
> > I really need it in 2.2 rather than 3.0 so I'd like to merge it in from
> > -current later thes afternoon if I don't hear any objections.
>
> Objection. If you need this for Whistle, you should keep it in your
> own tree, its does NOT belong in the generic FreeBSD tree.
>
I asked if people thought it would be useful..
I got 20 replies saying that YES it would be useful,
so I've added it to -current.
It's #ifdef'ed out as it is. You need to specifically
compile it in to make use of it.
Most people I know who are running company file servers for this sort
of thing are running 2.2.x rather than 3.0,
so making it only available in 3.0 doesn't help them.
We are running it here on 2.2 on N machines (where N is a large number)
so the 2.2 patches are much more tested than the 3.0 version.
I have a 2.2 set of patches that are tested and known to work
sitting in my freebsd CVS-d tree waiting for the words
"cvs commit"
but I haven't said them. but as I said. they are bracketted in
#ifdef SUIDDIR
#endif
so without the change there are 0 bytes of binary change in the kernel.
The risk is minimal.
When we started the -stable/-current split, the requirement for adding
code to -stabe branches was:
1/ "Not breaking any existing features/interfaces"
[this is a NEW feature]
2/ "Must be tested"
[how many 0s do I need to put on the number of
machines running this before it's 'tested'?]
If it's not in 2.2 it can't be tested in 2.2,and We've tested it as
much as we can in our application it's time for wider distribution..
what I'm asking is:
"Can I check in some code that is presently #ifdef'd out"
is this such a risk?
the request to do this came from the Samba developers as a way
to make things work the way that PC usesrs expect. We did so for them
because their product is integral to ours.
I don't know if they will be getting the same changes into Linux
but it wouldn't surprise me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?346B7D0F.446B9B3D>