Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by candiddevmike | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

candiddevmike

It's rm with a trash can that by default is in a terribly insecure location (/tmp is typically world read/writable).

EDIT: just tested it, it creates /tmp/graveyard-$USER with 0755.

View on HN

Maintainer here. This comment is incorrect.

rip2 creates the graveyard with 0700, not 0755. That change was one of the reasons for forking from the original rip.

Code: https://github.com/MilesCranmer/rip2/blob/6165ed0c692b27f196...

It's a great idea but perhaps needs to be executed a little better. Hoping the op reads these comments as us all just being grumpy sysops but takes the positives from them, and works on rip3 with better system-level safety.

And for everyone else, always worth remembering that author could have instead built: .

Instead they chose to build something, so let's not shit all over their intent

Not only that, but the comment could have been much better: It could be an issue on GH saying "the default location is insecure, please use ~/.cache" or whatnot.

Good point. :) I definitely overanalyze to the point where I program a lot less extracurricular stuff. I admire people with the ability to just do it.

Here here!

The XDG trashcan would be a better place, and you'd even be able to restore files using whatever GUI file browser you use: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/trash-spec/latest/

It would be nice to know how and why the goals of this supposedly diverge from xdg-trash

Before I read this comment I thought "xdg-trash spec" in the README was bashing xdg.

[flagged]

God forbid `/tmp` is a different filesystem from wherever the original file resided in.

which, it usually is... tmpfs

Which, until recently, was losing file metadata, like extended attributes (in very old tmpfs versions also the timestamps could have been truncated).

Whenever exact file copies are desired, they must not pass through /tmp or through any other place where tmpfs is mounted, unless it is checked that the tmpfs version is new enough to preserve file metadata.

(In multi-user computers, it was usual to copy a file through /tmp for copies between users, because that might have been the only place where both users had access.)

Older versions of tmpfs did not support any extended attributes, then only certain system attributes were preserved, while all user attributes were deleted. Only one year or two ago tmpfs has been enhanced to preserve most extended attributes, with some size constraints. Many older systems still have tmpfs versions that lose the extended attributes.

Oh heck, good point. I forgot about that in my criticism, extended attributes. If you've gone through the effort of actually using SELinux, this could undo it... at least to the point of requiring 'restorecon' to reapply the context policy on deleted-then-restored files

So the trash bin leaves grime on things, great.

Self-clearing insecure recycle bin, but it's memory safe!!!

And if you delete too much the trash folder on tmpfs will fill up to half your available memory. With how terrible linux is with swap, unintentionally deleting a lot of data while doing something memory-intensive may well cause your system to slow to a crawl, forcing you to either sit it out or reboot and lose your recycle bin

Don't forget 'systemd-oomd' who may try to help. Depending on the configuration of your distribution/desktop environment, there's a non-zero chance your whole DE gets whacked. I generally am a fan of 'systemd', but the collection of parts require attention. cgroups and such

Absolutely none of this is a concern for this project, though. I just find this-then-that stuff funny

Author acknowledges how the tmpdir can be a bad default, so that’s why you can change it :)

> Graveyard location.

> You can see the current graveyard location by running rip graveyard. If you have $XDG_DATA_HOME environment variable set, rip will use $XDG_DATA_HOME/graveyard instead of the $TMPDIR/graveyard-$USER.

> If you want to put the graveyard somewhere else (like ~/.local/share/Trash), you have two options, in order of precedence:

> Alias rip to rip --graveyard ~/.local/share/Trash

> Set the environment variable $RIP_GRAVEYARD to ~/.local/share/Trash.

> This can be a good idea because if the graveyard is mounted on an in-memory file system (as /tmp is in Arch Linux), deleting large files can quickly fill up your RAM. It's also much slower to move files across file systems, although the delay should be minimal with an SSD.

>rip is a rust-based rm with a focus on safety, ergonomics, and performance

then puts the default trash location in /tmp ? knowing its a bad decision? kinda makes me leery of the rest with this kind of reasoning skills

Yeah, I can't disagree with this, knowing that something is a bad default and still using it isn't fantastic.

It would be much better to put the files somewhere else and clear old files whenever rip was run.

>~/.local/share/Trash

Kinda bad example since this tool doesn't follow xdg-trash spec per README. Tools that do (such as the file managers from the big DEs) use this directory.

That's not quite how things work, file permissions don't magically go way just because they land in tmp, this is only a problem if your file permissions are setup wrongly and implicitly relied on parent folders etc.

But then file permissions being "wrong" or relying on the parent folder is the norm...

I wonder if it does keep ACLs associated with the file.

Take this prior art for example:

    ~ $ ll -d $HOME/.local/share/Trash
    drwx------. 5 me me 47 Jan 15  2020 /home/me/.local/share/Trash

Home directories and the root they're stored in aren't generally well-protected, trash directories should do so to avoid leaking.

Per the XDG spec if this is open, you want sticky bits. More justice (and considerations) here: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/trash-spec/latest/

An interesting challenge or angle to this: space consumption, ownership in a real-world sense (ie: fingerpointing)

Anyone knows how something like GNOME or KDE handles it? I am guessing a directory in user's home should be good enough, right?

That is a neat easy challenge for my next CTF.

And sometimes mounted to a device with less storage

This is a good practical example for the less experienced that just because it’s written in rust doesn’t mean it’s magically more secure. Who’s gonna write up the CVE?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com