Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 22:49:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Michael Reifenberger <mike@Reifenberger.com> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /" Message-ID: <20041002224230.T24332@fw.reifenberger.com> In-Reply-To: <20041002201211.GA1677@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20041002081928.GA21439@gothmog.gr> <20041002102918.W22102@fw.reifenberger.com> <20041002211759.R24332@fw.reifenberger.com> <20041002201211.GA1677@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, David Schultz wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:12:11 -0400
> From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
> To: Michael Reifenberger <mike@Reifenberger.com>
> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
> Subject: Re: Protection from the dreaded "rm -fr /"
>
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2004, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, David Schultz wrote:
>> ...
>>> Do you also want to be able to swap to the root partition while
>>> it's mounted? We can bring back that feature, too. But
>>> personally, I don't see anything wrong with the view that
>>> operations that are guaranteed to shoot people in the foot should
>>> be disallowed.
>>>
>>
>> Every anti foot shooting takes time to check for.
>> A strncmp for every arg is maybe ok. Traversing the tree for realpath is
>> not.
>> The job for `rm` is to remove whatever it is given to get removed.
>> As fast as possible. Nothing else.
>
> Sigh. The original patch that just used strcmp() wouldn't have
> increased the time to execute rm by more than a few hundred
> nanoseconds.
>
Wasn't there a discussion recently to increase ARG_MAX...?
:-)
Bye/2
---
Michael Reifenberger, Business Development Manager SAP-Basis, Plaut Consulting
Comp: Michael.Reifenberger@plaut.de | Priv: Michael@Reifenberger.com
http://www.plaut.de | http://www.Reifenberger.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041002224230.T24332>