From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 30 20:20:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 C0E6B16A4D4 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:20:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tim1timau@yahoo.com) Received: from web50311.mail.yahoo.com (web50311.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.39.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B044843D5F for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:20:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tim1timau@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 99458 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Oct 2006 20:20:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=wy/ReToo6NF/BqnG/1I5AefwTWY0T68Xbfeu3TBHmVxTzK2nLZWe+HCVHoQwvgEZU7Y56lx2UKkjbJ1T6WkMwSx6S/DeH+IKcnlRj1bgQtXpz75scDPyFsfQP1WEE9pbGWae+RCKAyDJWEaDO2YceH8u7Nfd0p1ZEGJ/YUScfL0= ; Message-ID: <20061030202034.99456.qmail@web50311.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [210.0.100.149] by web50311.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:20:33 PST Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:20:33 -0800 (PST) From: Tim Clewlow To: Bakul Shah , Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <20061030191611.06DFF5B82@mail.bitblocks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: delphij@FreeBSD.org, perryh@pluto.rain.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:20:36 -0000 --- Bakul Shah wrote: > Sorry if I tuned in late:-) > > I vote for taking *out* -P. It is an ill-designed > feature. > Or if you keep it, also add it to mv, cp -f & ln -f > since > these commands can also unlink a file and once > unlinked in > this matter you can't scrub it. And also fix up the > behavior > for -P when multiple links. And since mv can use > rename(2), > you will have to also dirty up the kernel interface > somehow. > Not to mention even editing such a sensitive file > can leave > stuff all over the disk that a bad guy can get at. > If you > are truely paranoid (as opposed to paranoid only > when on > meds) you know how bad that is! > > If you are that concious about scrubbing why not add > scrubbing as a mount option (suggested option: -o > paranoid) > then at least it will be handled consistently. > > What's the world come to when even the paranoid are > such > amateurs. > > -- bakul > Based on all the potential situations where a -P option may possibly be implemented, is it worthwhile considering creating a command that just scrubs a file, and does nothing else. This would seem to fit the Unix paradigm of single command to do a single thing, and may be preferable to attempting to embed this function in every command that may "possibly" remove a file. Just my 2c Tim ____________________________________________________________________________________ Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com)