From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Jun 6 13:26: 4 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011FB37B98D for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:26:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA29119; Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:25:34 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606142150.04ab7760@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:25:24 -0600 To: Narvi From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Undelete in Unix (Was: Re: Why encourage stupid people to use *BSD) Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , "Thomas M. Sommers" , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000605142053.04aa2ee0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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