From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct  5 16:03:27 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 39E4F16A4CE; Tue,  5 Oct 2004 16:03:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from athena.softcardsystems.com (mail.softcardsystems.com
	[12.34.136.114])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BA57D43D41; Tue,  5 Oct 2004 16:03:26 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from sah@softcardsystems.com)
Received: from athena (athena [12.34.136.114])i95H2ErI011534;
	Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:02:14 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:02:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
X-X-Sender: sah@athena
To: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>
In-Reply-To: <20041005103123.C46325@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0410051156280.11470@athena>
References: <20041002081928.GA21439@gothmog.gr>
	<200410021123.59811.max@love2party.net>
	<20041002101842.GA23272@gothmog.gr>
	<20041005103123.C46325@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
cc: Ryan Sommers <ryans@gamersimpact.com>
Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:03:27 -0000

>> 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