Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 22:34:00 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" Message-ID: <xzpmzz3a6dj.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20041003.113739.95785967.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Sun, 03 Oct 2004 11:37:39 -0600 (MDT)") References: <20041002210554.GS35869@seekingfire.com> <20041002.192951.35870461.imp@bsdimp.com> <20041003030946.GV35869@seekingfire.com> <20041003.113739.95785967.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > rm doesn't have to live in the chroot. Consider > chroot /some/path/to/a/chroot rm -rf / > in this case, everything under the /some/path/to/a/chroot would be > removed. However, the rm that's running is outside of the chroot. Wrong, and I'd be interested to hear how you think chroot(8) would pull that off if it were the case. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpmzz3a6dj.fsf>