Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:25:24 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Undelete in Unix (Was: Re: Why encourage stupid people to use *BSD) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606142150.04ab7760@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000606113137.2330F-100000@haldjas.folklore. ee> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000605142053.04aa2ee0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:33 AM 6/6/2000, Narvi wrote: >> I'd do it with an lkm that hooked syscalls. > >But that provides more than most things under NT - guranteed undelete of >any file, no matter how deleted. Given Microsoft's prowess (not!) at software engineering, NT should not be used as a standard of comparison. Instead, we should do what makes sense. >Hooking unlink also produces a lot of problems, especially if the user >runs any suid programs, esp. if those happen to use temporary files... This simply means that the solution has to be well thought out. Permissions are not the only issue; quotas also come into play. A good scheme would also look at the euid to see whether a daemon was acting on behalf of a user. No one said that all this was easy to do right. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000606142150.04ab7760>