Re: why no undelete?
From: Molchun (molchun_at_REMOVEbluerealm.co.uk)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:55:20 +0100
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> Molchun <molchun@REMOVEbluerealm.co.uk> writes:
>> David L. Johnson wrote:
>>> This is, excuse me, a bullshit answer. The reason that undelete is
>>> traditionally impossible is due to security considerations. unix boxes
>>> are naturally muti-user machines, and in order for the contents of
>>> deleted files to not be visible to other users, the rm command does much
>>> more than
>>> on a dos/windows machine. It really obliterates the file, not just its
>>> addressing information.
>> Bollocks !!!
>> Why don't you have a look at the "rm" source?
>> If you want to "shred" the file you need to do it yourself, "rm" will not
>> do it for you.
> Just because rm doesn't shred the file doesn't mean that the underlying
> filesystem won't do so.
Of course it doesn't! So?
> It also doesn't mean that the unlink(2) system
> call that rm utilizes won't shred the file.
Sure it doesn't! What's your point?
> Unlink does not, and I'm
> also not aware of any linux filesystems that do it. However, your logic
> for why a file is not obliterated when it is deleted is flawed.
Filesystem could do it, modified unlink() syscall could do it,
hardware-ide-shredder which you carefully plug into available shredder-slot
on your hard drive could do it and you know what, sand paper could do it.
None of it exist (apart from the sand paper and the ide shredder, of
Plus, all that has nothing to do with my post.
The poster I replied to said: "rm does much more ... "
And I said: "BS, it doesn't ..."