Todd C. Miller wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 14:04:20 -0400, "Ted Unangst" wrote: > > > I think this is a more reliable way of detecting rm -rf /. > > Previous effort was reverted due to false positives. > > I think it makes more sense to just check st_dev and st_ino. > Otherwise there is a race that can cause the check to fail due to > things like the timestamp changing.
right, got lazy. fixed.
