Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:35:28 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Steven Hartland <killing@barrysworld.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linprocfs issues Message-ID: <xzpoexu76tb.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <00a301c375f4$66080ee0$b3db87d4@vader> (Steven Hartland's message of "Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:31:43 %2B0100") References: <00a301c375f4$66080ee0$b3db87d4@vader>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Steven Hartland" <killing@barrysworld.com> writes: > Also it seems that linprocfs relies on procfs being mounted > however I cant find any docs that mention this and see no > reason why it should be the case. The problem I see > is that I get errors from linux apps about /proc/<pid>/file > not existing. When trussing them they are never trying to > open "file" I suspect it is happening when the access either > cmdline or exe most likely exe. linprocfs uses parts of the procfs code; for instance, linprocfs's <pid>/exe and procfs's <pid>/file are backed by the same code. In the case of <pid>/cmdline, which exists with the same name in both FreeBSD and Linux, linprocfs relies on procfs's cmdline to "show through" rather than duplicate it. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpoexu76tb.fsf>