| |||||||||||||
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck)Shortening the rope (around RH's neck)Posted Apr 3, 2009 22:07 UTC (Fri) by fmarier (subscriber, #19894)In reply to: Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) by vblum Parent article: Shortening the rope
Personally, I welcome some of the new protections. IMO It's not about losing control, it's about preventing smart and competent sysadmins from costly accidents.
For example, there are cases where I can see no good reason to be able to delete a specific directory (e.g. /, /bin, etc.). In fact, having done that by accident at some point, I would have preferred safer defaults.
That's why I decided to write safe-rm (http://www.safe-rm.org.nz) to blacklist certain directories and files. It's aliased to rm on my machine but I can always use "/bin/rm" if I really wanted to delete my /usr/lib.
(Log in to post comments)
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 3, 2009 23:51 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
What does safe-rm do that 'chattr +i' doesn't?
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 4, 2009 7:17 UTC (Sat) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
chattr +i would stop any changes at all to a file, including normal version upgrades of executables. Something like safe-rm is a bit more focused on preventing accidental deletions. However, "chattr +i / /usr" might be a good idea as it doesn't depend on someone using safe-rm etc.
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 5, 2009 1:58 UTC (Sun) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]
chattr +i on a directory will stop any files in the directory from being modified, from a quick test, but it won't stop subdirectories from being removed recursively by rm -r. So it's only really useful on files, but you don't want to make files in /bin unmodifiable -- they need to be be changed in system upgrades. So for the same reason you don't want to make /bin unmodifiable (it seems to prevent some modifications to files it contains, certainly at least removal and likely overwriting of all kinds).
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 5, 2009 11:56 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ew. I didn't realise that. That seems like an rm -r bug to me.
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 5, 2009 17:11 UTC (Sun) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
Why not mount /, /bin,... read-only?
Keep everything you need to write to, e.g., /tmp, /var, on separate filesystems. That's what I do, and it works nicely. Of course, you could still end up deleting your home directory...
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 7, 2009 13:44 UTC (Tue) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]
You need /etc to be RW, and you need that very early in the boot sequence, so it traditionally has to be inside /. That's the only thing that gets in the way of mounting / RO.
accidental deletion and read-only root filesystem Posted Apr 9, 2009 23:37 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] You do have to use a rather different filesystem layout than what comes with conventional Linux to have a read-only root filesystem. I've been doing it for years, though. Sometimes it's as easy as having symbolic links from the root filesystem to a read/write filesystem, but other times it's as hard as having to modify a program to eliminate a hardcoded file name.I also do daily automated backups. Deleting my home directory wouldn't be particularly severe for me.
Shortening the rope (around RH's neck) Posted Apr 17, 2009 11:34 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]
But rm isn't the only tool which can be misused. Do you have safe versions of tar, chmod, chown,
and mv for example? What about graphical file managers?
This seems much more like something you should be able to do through permissions rather than
|
|||||||||||||