Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:11:13 -0600 From: <soralx@cydem.org> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" Message-ID: <200410021611.13450.soralx@cydem.org> In-Reply-To: <20041002220035.GD2493@submonkey.net> References: <BAY2-F27PUPeKljq65R00014185@hotmail.com> <p06110421bd84c87e063b@[128.113.24.47]> <20041002220035.GD2493@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > We could add a new flag "srunlnk", or maybe even "srm-r". The "rm" > > command will always have to stat() the file it is given (just to > > see if it is a directory), so it could check to see if this flag > > is turned on. If it is turned on, then 'rm' could refuse to honor > > any '-rf' request on that directory. Why not to just add a flag to 'rm'? For example, `rm -rf /` or `cd; rm -rf .././` will fail, but `rm -rF /` will succeed. Timestamp: 0x415F2702 [SorAlx] http://cydem.org.ua/ ridin' VN1500-B2
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410021611.13450.soralx>