From owner-freebsd-security Fri May 21 11:11: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C13159DB for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA29620; Fri, 21 May 1999 20:10:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id UAA89224; Fri, 21 May 1999 20:10:44 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 20:10:43 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund To: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , "Ilmar S. Habibulin" , posix1e@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: secure deletion Message-ID: <19990521201043.I85583@bitbox.follo.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: ; from brooks@one-eyed-alien.net on Fri, May 21, 1999 at 11:04:25AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 11:04:25AM -0700, brooks@one-eyed-alien.net wrote: > On 21 May 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > "Ilmar S. Habibulin" writes: > > > Why mount option? Secure deletion is a feature of fs and impacts files of > > > this on this fs. All of them. So why use mount option? > > > > Because a mount option can be changed at runtime, whereas a kernel > > option cannot. A mount option would allow you to enable the security > > feature on file systems which need it but not on file systems which do > > not need it, whereas a kernel option would enable it unconditionally > > on all file systems. > > I'd definaly agree that it should be done on an FS by FS bases, but it > seems that a tunefs flag like softupdates might be more appropriate. My > reason for this is simply that if you forget to enable the option once and > do any write operations to speak of, you will need to completly wipe the > entire FS to ensure you actually destroy the old data. Making it a tunefs > option would mean that you couldn't forget. Either tunefs or chflags - it would be relatively expensive, so if you only need it for some data, it is probably better to have more fine-grained control than per-FS. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message