From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 2 23:28:46 2004 Return-Path: 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 ED15016A4CE for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:28:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kane.otenet.gr (kane.otenet.gr [195.170.0.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4BC43D31 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:28:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: from gothmog.gr (patr530-b221.otenet.gr [212.205.244.229]) i92NShmc005775; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 02:28:44 +0300 Received: from gothmog.gr (gothmog [127.0.0.1]) by gothmog.gr (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i92NSe8P001816; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 02:28:40 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Received: (from giorgos@localhost) by gothmog.gr (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i92NFkoI001703; Sun, 3 Oct 2004 02:15:46 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@freebsd.org) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 02:15:46 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Michael Reifenberger Message-ID: <20041002231546.GD1381@gothmog.gr> References: <20041002081928.GA21439@gothmog.gr> <200410021123.59811.max@love2party.net> <20041002102430.Y5481@thor.farley.org> <20041002165155.GP35869@seekingfire.com> <20041002175517.GA2230@gothmog.gr> <20041002204851.K24332@fw.reifenberger.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041002204851.K24332@fw.reifenberger.com> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:28:47 -0000 On 2004-10-02 21:16, Michael Reifenberger wrote: >> Exactly. Who would expect `rm -rf /` to actually succeed? It's not >> only dangerous, it doesn't work in a useful way ;-) >> >> If one is thinking about `rm -rf /`, `newfs` is probably the right >> answer. > > newfs only works if the root is not mounted because otherwise the > device is locked. No it doesn't. You're just protected by GEOM's locking of the partition table for mounted partitions. > (Hmm is GEOM too anti foot shooting? Yes. > But can't you reenable foot-shooting via sysctl?) Not via a sysctl, but there is an ioctl to do that now: DIOCSMBR. See revision 1.14 of src/usr.sbin/boot0cfg/boot0cfg.c for an example.