Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:07:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), dynamo@ime.net, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... Message-ID: <199908312007.NAA72350@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <199908311450.IAA11239@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Aug 31, 1999 08:50:15 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <199908310720.AAA68164@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: > : Actually I think that was done on purpose. Since UF_NOUNLINK is to > : protect the user from removing the file it would kinda make since > : that rm -rf should bitch loudly when asked to rm a UF_NOUNLINK flagged > : file shouldn't it? > : > : IMHO, rm should not know about flags at all. chflags knows about flags, > : and if we ever get acl's rm should not be tought about them either, > : some other command (acl(1) anyone) will know how to deal with them. > > Yes, but if force doesn't mean try your best to delete it, then it is > kinda useless... Ahhh.. you said it not me... one more misconceived and not easily correctly implemented option. > There are times that policy is to kill everything, > flags to the contrary non-with-standing. Unix commands should not implement policy, only methods. -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199908312007.NAA72350>