On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Alexander Best <arun...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon Oct 4 10, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:35:54PM +0400, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: >> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Alexander Best wrote: >> > AB> "The -P option assumes that the underlying file system is a >> > fixed-block >> > AB> file system. UFS is a fixed-block file system, LFS is not. In >> > addition, >> > AB> only regular files are overwritten, other types of files are not." >> > >> > Maybe s/LFS/ZFS/ then, as LFS is no more relevant for FreeBSD users while >> > ZFS >> > now is? >> >> That's what I thought too. > > good point. ZFS should really be added to the list and LFS should go away. are > there any other relevant filesystems without a fixed-block size that need to > be > mentioned? what about afs? or tmpfs?
I'm not fully up-to-speed on the AFS fileserver backend, but it is certainly the case that AFS cannot guarantee that rm -P will actually overwrite the data on-disk. There are probably several mechanisms by which this could happen, the easiest to see of which would be if a filesystem like ZFS was used as the backing store for the fileserver partitions. > > also: is this really something belonging into a BUGS section? personally i > think the BUGS section in rm(1) should be renamed to CAVEATS. BUGS is easier to find than CAVEATS, though I guess rm(1) is short enough that we can expect people to read the whole thing. -Ben Kaduk _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
