Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:28:57 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" Message-ID: <20041003222523.J9166@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20041003.113739.95785967.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20041002210554.GS35869@seekingfire.com> <20041002.192951.35870461.imp@bsdimp.com> <20041003.113739.95785967.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, M. Warner Losh wrote: [snip] MWL> rm doesn't have to live in the chroot. Consider MWL> chroot /some/path/to/a/chroot rm -rf / MWL> in this case, everything under the /some/path/to/a/chroot would be MWL> removed. However, the rm that's running is outside of the chroot. Not to be too nit-picking, but this is not true, as far as I can understand chroot(8) and chroot(2) ;-) However, since rm is usually statically linked and/or all needed code segments are referenced during rm work are loaded/referenced, this operation finishes successfully (just checked on 4-STABLE and -CURRENT). ... and no, I do *NOT* want to participate in this bikesched color discussion! ;-P Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041003222523.J9166>