Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!servalan!rmtodd
From: rmtodd@servalan.uucp (Richard Todd)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Protection from "rm *"
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.004356.6191@servalan.uucp>
Date: 17 Oct 90 00:43:56 GMT
References: <1990Oct11.184004.9353@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1100@bilver.UUCP> <4195@auspex.auspex.com> <4198@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Lines: 14

jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>With any luck, that botch is fixed in S5R4.

>OK...I give up. Why is not being able to remove a program in use a botch?

  I can remove a link to an file that some process has opened with the open()
(or creat()) syscall; the file blocks and its inode continue to remain on
the disk unharmed even after the last link is removed.  Yet I can't remove
a link to an inode that just happens to include an executing progam.  
Why should these two cases be any different? 
--
Richard Todd	rmtodd@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu  rmtodd@chinet.chi.il.us
	rmtodd@servalan.uucp
"Cancelling a posted message means posting a cancel message."-Maarten Litmaath