[OpenAFS-devel] RE: OpenAFS CVS Commit: openafs/src/viced byzacheiss

[Neulinger, Nathan]

Like I said... I don't disagree with the change. I just think changing
behavior in this way should probably be a bit more open, cause it will
have an impact if you were used to it behaving that way.

I don't know if it would be enough of an impact to warrant a command
line control option or not. I doubt it.=20

Definately should be clearly spelled out in NEWS/release notes for the
next release it is in.

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Allbery [mailto:rra@stanford.edu]=20
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: openafs-devel@openafs.org
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS-devel] RE: OpenAFS CVS Commit:=20
> openafs/src/viced byzacheiss
>=20
>=20
> Neulinger, Nathan <nneul@umr.edu> writes:
>=20
> > Not that I disagree with this change or anything, but it=20
> sounds like a
> > rather significant change in behavior to be applying without much
> > discussion.=20
>=20
> This is in part my fault; I just brought it up in the AFS Workshop at
> Usenix.  Apparently this is something that Transarc changed a=20
> while back
> and that MIT then patched back out again (folks at MIT always=20
> get confused
> when I mention this).
>=20
> If anyone is interested in the extended discussion of why I think this
> change is a major security improvement, let me know; I can go=20
> on about it
> at some length.
>=20
> --=20
> Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)            =20
> <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-devel mailing list
> OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
>=20