Re: interrupting `shred -u's renaming: what should it do?

[Bob Proulx]

Paul Jarc wrote:
> address@hidden (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> > Since shred was interrupted, was unable to shred the file, I think it
> > should return the file to the previous name.
> 
> I was going to suggest that as well, but what if a new file has
> appeared with the original name?  shred could use link+unlink instead
> of rename to avoid clobbering the new file, but then what to do if
> link fails because a new file is there?  It may be more trouble than
> it's worth.

Hmm...  Is there a way to rename atomically with a guarentee that it
will fail if the target exists?

The problem with shred is that it has security overtones.  Anything
there tends to have strong emotional responses from people.

Bob