Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:07:23 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... Message-ID: <199908301807.MAA04962@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:01:49 PDT." <199908301801.LAA66101@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <199908301801.LAA66101@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199908301801.LAA66101@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: : > In message <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Bruce Evans writes: : > : >Is there a better way to turn off all the user flags then? : > : : > : Turning them all off works of course: : > : : > : chflags dump,noopaque,nouappnd,nochg,nouunlnk : > : : > : Is this better :-)? It's not future-proof. I'd prefer `chflags nouflags'. : > : > Any objections to chflags nouflags going into the tree, modulo : > problems with the actual code that does it? : : I don't have a problem with that. : : > : > I'd also like to have a new flag to rm. -F. One -F will be : > chflags nouflags foo ; rm -f foo : > while two -F will be : > chflags 0 foo ; rm -f foo : : I have a problem with this, it means updating 1 more chunk of code : should the set of items in uflags change. I was going to define something like UF_USERFLAGS and SF_SYSFLAGS as well... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908301807.MAA04962>