Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:38:30 -0400 From: "Bob Johnson" <fbsdlists@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rm(1) bug, possibly serious Message-ID: <54db43990709251838q68bdba95iefefb43029761c34@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200709251743.l8PHhvlP012244@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <20070925173634.89748abe.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> <200709251743.l8PHhvlP012244@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/25/07, Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote: > Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > > > $ cd /tmp > > > $ mkdir -p foo/var > > > $ cd foo/bar > > > $ rm -rf ../ > > > rm: ../: Invalid argument > > > $ rm -rf ../ > > > $ > > > [...] > > Quick testing here: > > [...] > > Ok, I think it is a bug. > > Yes, I think so, too. > > By the way, an additional confusion is that ".." and "../" > are handled differently. Specifying ".." always leads to > this message: > > rm: "." and ".." may not be removed > > and nothing is actually removed. It is confusing that > adding a slash leads to a different error message _and_ > removal of the contents of the parent directory. Clearly > a POLA violation. Maybe. But I expect that the behavior for "rm -rf .." is there so that things don't get REALLY astonishing when you do "rm -rf *". Having a different behavior for "rm -rf ../" may have been intentional on someone's part so you can override the protection if you really want to. - Bob
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54db43990709251838q68bdba95iefefb43029761c34>