[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: rm patch suggestion

From: Oystein Viggen
Subject: Re: rm patch suggestion
Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 22:25:50 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.1 (Capitol Reef, i386-debian-linux)

* [Marcus Brinkmann] 

> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:59:30PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Another approach to this whole issue would be to provide a "safety"
>> translator that gives you a virtual directory that accesses an
>> underlying filesystem with O_NOTRANS, and only follows translators on
>> nodes owned by root.
> Oh, and then
> settrans --chroot rm -rf / -- /tmp/untrusted /hurd/safety
> with a wrapper script "safety" like for fakeroot?

Ah, this actually seems to kill both rm and updatedb issues with the
proverbial single stone.

> I think the only headache would be filesystems that refuse to go away
> easily.  Maybe that's something the -f option could do: if the node is
> translated (assuming you see this, for example because of the safety
> translator above), then try to get rid off the translator as hard as
> possible, like the -f flag on settrans).

When doing an rm -Rf, you probably wouldn't be too concerned about the
files inside anyway, so I'd guess -f would be OK.

> Which reminds me, there are still some translators in the Hurd that don't
> obey to the standard rules for this (mostly obscure specialised
> translators), that's also a nice job for new Hurd hackers to fix.

Does this mean that translators can refuse to go away, even with -f?
I think I see another line of abuse for creative users..

This message was generated by a flock of happy penguins.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]