lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: PATCH - ext2fs privacy (i.e. secure deletion) patch
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:47:54 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
    > > This of course implies that 'chattr +s' (or whatever it was) has to fail
    > > if the link count isn't exactly one.
    >
    > Do you disagree that the count does need to be one?

    I'm not prepared to say that there's no scenario where we *dont* care
    how many links there are, as long as the file *does* get wiped when the
    last one goes away.

    The MH mail handler stores each message in a file - so a mail message is easily
    stored in multiple folders by simply using multiple hard links. I could
    easily see having mail that I want to +s and go away when I remove it from
    the last folder it was in....

    > I agree with everything you said, "useful" doesn't always map to "easy."
    > But if you agree that the count needs to be one on files, then you could
    > also fail if you tried to add it to a directory which was not empty.

    Yes you could. The question is whether that's a desired semantic or not.

    > In case I didn't make it clear, the use I was considering was to create
    > a single directory in which created files would really go away when
    > deleted. I hadn't considered doing it after files were present, what you
    > say about overhead is clearly an issue. I think I could even envision
    > some bizarre race conditions if the kernel had to do marking of each
    > file, so perhaps it's impractical.

    As I said, ugly and murky....

    > But what happens when the 'setgid' bit is put on a directory? At least
    > in 2.4 existing files do NOT get the group set, only files newly
    > created. So unless someone feels that's a bug which needs immediate
    > fixing, I can point to it as a model by which the feature could be
    > practically implemented.

    Ahh.. but now you're suggesting a different model than "directory must
    be empty". Obviously more discussion of what we *want* it to do is needed ;)
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.034 / U:1.604 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site