Subject: Re: ps vs /proc
To: None <email@example.com>
From: PER4MANCE, J. Dolecek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/24/2000 15:12:58
"Brian C. Grayson" wrote:
> I got the feeling at that time from the discussions that it was
> better to give no information than possibly-erroneous
> information. That's why ps (when using the /procfs fallback) does
> an open, followed by verify_procfs_fd(), every time it examines a
> file. Talk about paranoia!
What about adding a flag to ps, which would enable it to use
whatever is mounted on /proc ? (default off, of course).
It would have to be flagged with big warning in manpage,
but would be valueable for those who know what are they doing.
> Hm. Line 223 of procfs_ops.c does a strcmp of the returned
> f_fstypename against MOUNT_PROCFS (defined in
> /usr/include/sys/mount.h), which is what failed. It might be
> interesting, if you haven't already upgraded the whole system,
> to have the warning print out what kind of filesystem it
> _thinks_ it is. It'll probably just be "ocfs" or "fs"... :)
Yes, such a printf would be prolly good :)