From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263606AbUBDRD3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:03:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263618AbUBDRD3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:03:29 -0500 Received: from host-64-65-253-246.alb.choiceone.net ([64.65.253.246]:53684 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263606AbUBDRD2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:03:28 -0500 Message-ID: <40212643.4000104@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:05:07 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: the grugq CC: "Theodore Ts'o" , Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PATCH - ext2fs privacy (i.e. secure deletion) patch References: <4017E3B9.3090605@hcunix.net> <20040203222030.GB465@elf.ucw.cz> <40203DE1.3000302@hcunix.net> <20040204004318.GA253@elf.ucw.cz> <20040204062936.GA2663@thunk.org> <4020EEB0.50002@hcunix.net> In-Reply-To: <4020EEB0.50002@hcunix.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org the grugq wrote: > >> >> The obvious thing to do would be to make it a mount option, so that >> (a) recompilation is not necessary in order to use the feature, and >> (b) the feature can be turned on or off on a per-filesystem feature. >> In 2.6, it's possible to specify certain mount option to be specifed >> by default on a per-filesystem basis (via a new field in the >> superblock). >> So if you do things that way, then secure deletion would take place >> either if the secure deletion flag is set (so it can be enabled on a >> per-file basis), or if the filesystem is mounted with the >> secure-deletion mount option. > > > Makes sense to me. If either the file system, or the file, are in > 'secure delete' mode, then erase everything about the file. Allowing the > paranoid to have the option as default, and the concerned to target > specific files. I like it. It would be useful to have this as a directory option, so that all files in directory would be protected. I think wherever you do it you have to prevent hard links, so that unlink really removes the data. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979