Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:01:49 -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: <199908301801.LAA66101@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <199908300339.VAA00562@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Aug 29, 1999 09:39:59 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <199908300307.NAA06836@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Bruce Evans writes: > : >Is there a better way to turn off all the user flags then? > : > : Turning them all off works of course: > : > : chflags dump,noopaque,nouappnd,nochg,nouunlnk > : > : Is this better :-)? It's not future-proof. I'd prefer `chflags nouflags'. > > Any objections to chflags nouflags going into the tree, modulo > problems with the actual code that does it? I don't have a problem with that. > > 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. -- 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?199908301801.LAA66101>