Subject: Re: rm patch
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Liam J. Foy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/24/2006 11:48:13
On 24 Aug 2006, at 02:16, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20060823230343.GA16062@panix.com>,
> Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:57:23AM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
>>> If I request -P, I don't want the file unlinked. There's
>>> something in its
>>> data that I don't want to have linger on the disk afterwards.
>>> Letting -f
>>> override this is unsafe; after the file is unlinked, there's no
>>> way I can
>>> ensure the file contents get overritten.
>> In fact, I tend to think that, with -P, -f should cause rm to
>> attempt to
>> chmod the file so that it can be overwritten, then overwrite it, then
>> unlink it if successful -- and, if any of this fails, immediately
> I think that this is too much magic. I would prefer that we error out
> giving the user a proper error message.
>> Bill i 100% right: -P should *never* unlink a file but leave the data
>> in place in the disk blocks.
> I totally agree.
I shall leave the patch as it is then. I'll commit it later tonight. Any
desired changes can be committed later on.
Liam J. Foy