From owner-freebsd-security Wed May 19 23:25:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1219114E66 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 23:25:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA64678; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:24:22 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA04145; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:24:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199905200624.AAA04145@harmony.village.org> To: "Ilmar S. Habibulin" Subject: Re: secure deletion Cc: posix1e@cyrus.watson.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 20 May 1999 09:59:40 +0400." References: Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 00:24:19 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message "Ilmar S. Habibulin" writes: : Bzero can be changed to some other function, is suppose that this is not a : question. The question is if this thing is needed by comunity. There is a certain segment of the community that would use it. If there was zero overhead (beyond a bit compare on unlink) when not used, binary compatible with current disks and a fairly clean implementation, then I think that there would be support for its inclusion. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message