Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:02:14 -0500 (EST) From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com> To: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> Cc: Ryan Sommers <ryans@gamersimpact.com> Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0410051156280.11470@athena> In-Reply-To: <20041005103123.C46325@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us> References: <20041002081928.GA21439@gothmog.gr> <200410021123.59811.max@love2party.net> <20041002101842.GA23272@gothmog.gr> <20041005103123.C46325@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> As for protecting against "rm -rf / foo" as a typo for "rm -rf /foo", I >> don't mind if we offer protection against that; but I see no reason at all >> to "protect" root from "rm -rf /". It's fair to say that somebody who >> types that means it, and it's fair to go as far as we can in satisfying it. > > I think you just nailed it on the head right here... if you say "rm -rf /" > you probably mean it, but if you say "rm -rf / foo" you probably oopsed > (pretty good bet, since rm / makes asking to rm foo redundant). How about > checking if there is more than one argument, and if one of those arguments is > "/", fail. If there is only one argument, even if it is "/", assume the user > knows what he is doing and proceed normally. Why not let -i override -f? Then the usual alias bit works fine for those who want it. For times when you really want the -f, you can type /bin/rm -rf. Or `which rm` -rf. Or put it in a shell script and call it rmf. There are a lot of ways to skin this properly without resorting to hacks making the tool smarter than the user. Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.60.0410051156280.11470>