From owner-freebsd-security Fri May 21 23:44:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from ints.ru (ints.ru [194.67.173.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38E6151CB for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:44:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ilmar@ws-ilmar.ints.ru) Received: from ws-ilmar.ints.ru (ws-ilmar.ints.ru [194.67.173.16]) by ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id KAA16548; Sat, 22 May 1999 10:44:45 +0400 (MSD) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ws-ilmar.ints.ru (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA25114; Sat, 22 May 1999 10:44:44 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 10:44:44 +0400 (MSD) From: "Ilmar S. Habibulin" To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: posix1e@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: secure deletion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 21 May 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > 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. And what about it? I just don't understand why this option must be fs-specific. If file have no flag, it would be deleted in ordinary way. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message