This is a discussion on Re: [patch] rm can have undesired side-effects - FreeBSD ; --- Bakul Shah wrote: > Sorry if I tuned in late:-) > > I vote for taking *out* -P. It is an ill-designed > feature. > Or if you keep it, also add it to mv, cp -f & ln ...
--- Bakul Shah
> Sorry if I tuned in late:-)
> I vote for taking *out* -P. It is an ill-designed
> Or if you keep it, also add it to mv, cp -f & ln -f
> these commands can also unlink a file and once
> unlinked in
> this matter you can't scrub it. And also fix up the
> for -P when multiple links. And since mv can use
> you will have to also dirty up the kernel interface
> Not to mention even editing such a sensitive file
> can leave
> stuff all over the disk that a bad guy can get at.
> If you
> are truely paranoid (as opposed to paranoid only
> when on
> meds) you know how bad that is!
> If you are that concious about scrubbing why not add
> scrubbing as a mount option (suggested option: -o
> then at least it will be handled consistently.
> What's the world come to when even the paranoid are
> -- bakul
Based on all the potential situations where a -P
option may possibly be implemented, is it worthwhile
considering creating a command that just scrubs a
file, and does nothing else. This would seem to fit
the Unix paradigm of single command to do a single
thing, and may be preferable to attempting to embed
this function in every command that may "possibly"
remove a file.
Just my 2c
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"