From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct  2 22:11:19 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 80B5816A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  2 Oct 2004 22:11:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from cydem.org (S0106000103ce4c9c.ed.shawcable.net [68.149.254.167])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC5B43D4C
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sat,  2 Oct 2004 22:11:19 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from soralx@cydem.org)
Received: from S01060020ed3972ba.ed.shawcable.net
	(S01060020ed3972ba.ed.shawcable.net [68.149.254.42])
	by cydem.org (Postfix/FreeBSD) with ESMTP id C20B538DB1;
	Sat,  2 Oct 2004 16:11:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: <soralx@cydem.org>
To: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>,
	Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:11:13 -0600
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <BAY2-F27PUPeKljq65R00014185@hotmail.com>
	<p06110421bd84c87e063b@[128.113.24.47]> <20041002220035.GD2493@submonkey.net>
In-Reply-To: <20041002220035.GD2493@submonkey.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200410021611.13450.soralx@cydem.org>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
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: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:11:19 -0000


> > 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