From owner-freebsd-security  Mon Aug 30 19: 1:35 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0228514C08
	for <security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA01906;
	Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:00:57 +1000
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 12:00:57 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199908310200.MAA01906@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net, imp@village.org
Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it...
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>> 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.  

Interesting point.  Support for removing user flags has already rotted
in rm.  The UF_NOUNLINK flag was added on 1997/06/02 but rm -rf still
doesn't clear it.

Support for the nounlnk flags is also broken in chflags and ls.
The flags are negative logic, like UF_NODUMP, and this is consistently
handled backwards (nodump was only backwards in the manpage).  Thus you
have to say `chflags uunlnk ...' to set the _NO_ uunlnk flag, and ls
tells you that the uunlnk flag is set despite there being no such flag.
The abbreviation uunlink as uunlnk doesn't help.

Bruce


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message