From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 27 11:27:58 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81F116A419 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:27:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@freebsd.org) Received: from natial.ongs.co.jp (natial.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.58]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F84213C46E for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:27:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@freebsd.org) Received: from parancell.ongs.co.jp (dullmdaler.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.62]) by natial.ongs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F35244C3A; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:27:56 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <46FB93BC.2000508@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:27:56 +0900 From: Daichi GOTO User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070803) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cpghost References: <46F905FD.9060208@freebsd.org> <20070925194008.3c2d7113@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <20070925194008.3c2d7113@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Current , Masanori OZAWA Subject: Re: The safety expansion for FreeBSD rm(1) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:27:58 -0000 cpghost wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:58:37 +0900 > Daichi GOTO wrote: > >> Today is not unionfs. Introduction for safety expansion of rm(1). >> I know that some unix folks have a experience that you remove some >> files or directories accidentally. Yes, me too. LoL >> >> Have you any dreams that rm(1) autonomously judges target should >> be remove or not? To complexify system base command is objectionable >> behavior but adding some little and simple mechanism to prevent a >> issue is acceptable I suppose. >> >> We have created safety expansion for rm(1). If you have any interests, >> please try follow patch. >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/safety-rm/ >> >> Thanks :) > > Interesting idea, but isn't that a violation of POLA? Imagine an What's POLA?? > unsuspecting sysadmin trying to rm something, and forgetting > or not knowing about ~/.rm? > > Isn't it better to protect important system directories with > something like: > # chflags sunlink /path/to/dir > and unprotect them with > # chflags nosunlink /path/to/dir > to avoid mistakes? Of course that's one of the ways, I suppose :) chflags is useful but root limitation feature is not useful for common users I suppose. With our expansion, common users can check files or directories on self-responsibility. And unusual commands like chflags I just suppose are no much point in this case. What is important is that adding mistake protecting functions into common commands like rm(1) itself. Of course I respect your opinions and all comments are welcome :) I have no intention to add our expansion to src tree. It just is a little patch for folks who have a interest of it. Thanks > Thanks, > -cpghost. -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi