From owner-freebsd-security Sat May 22 1:38:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E4D14BF1 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 01:38:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA71699; Sat, 22 May 1999 02:37:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id CAA02030; Sat, 22 May 1999 02:36:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199905220836.CAA02030@harmony.village.org> To: "Ilmar S. Habibulin" Subject: Re: secure deletion Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , posix1e@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 22 May 1999 10:44:44 +0400." References: Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 02:36:59 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message "Ilmar S. Habibulin" writes: : 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. I think that what people are saying, if I understand them correctly, is that it would be desirable if an entire file system could be told to do the shredding delete. This would make it useful for a filesystem mounted on /tmp, for example. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message