Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:37:18 +0100
From:      Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Directory rename semantics.
Message-ID:  <gf1jqq$kti$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081107123259.GC34757@submonkey.net>
References:  <20081027193545.GA95872@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl>	<20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU>	<20081106192829.GA98742@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl>	<20081106195558.GG2281@submonkey.net> <gf168k$48o$1@ger.gmane.org> <20081107123259.GC34757@submonkey.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigED0D2EDD547B049C2EE41C14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ceri Davies wrote:
> 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 wro=
te:
>>>> 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 impossi=
ble
>>>> to make sure this change wouldn't cause security problems.
>>> Perhaps it would have been better to either do nothing or create a zf=
s
>>> 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.
>=20
> That's essentially what has just happened, but without the knob.
>=20
> I'm not really sure whether you agree with the change that was made or
> not.

I agree with the aspect of the change that unified the semantics on UFS
and ZFS. I hope somebody comes up with a knob that would toggle it for
both systems at the same time, if the alternate behaviour is useful to
people.


--------------enigED0D2EDD547B049C2EE41C14
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJFFKeldnAQVacBcgRAjf8AKDZVg5HvQR9ahY54shV+GHJ2oTfLACeKa6H
hF5WzvySx+vxDEcxvCsbkaw=
=uiOo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigED0D2EDD547B049C2EE41C14--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gf1jqq$kti$1>