From owner-freebsd-security Mon Aug 30 12:12: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9FA14E42 for ; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA66317; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:09:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199908301909.MAA66317@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... In-Reply-To: <199908301807.MAA04962@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Aug 30, 1999 12:07:23 pm" To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > 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... It still goes aginst my ingrained Unix ideal that says each command should do one thing and one thing only, but do it really well. If you need to do 2 things you should glue 2 commands togeather. Have we all fallen off the rocker and forgotten this is one of the design concepts behind unix, and one of the things that has made it such a powerful operating system that has withstood the test of time over and over? I was sick when they added -R to cp (why did they do that anyway?), yes I got even sicker that once we did that we had to add -v, yes, I am an old fart who is set in his ways ... :-) -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message