From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Sep 15 21:10:05 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19211
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA19202;
          Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199709160410.VAA19202@hub.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
Subject: Re: kern/4551: cat /proc/*/mem gives "cat: /proc/0/mem: Bad address"
Reply-To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR kern/4551; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@efn.org>
To: ortmann@sparc.isl.net
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: kern/4551: cat /proc/*/mem gives "cat: /proc/0/mem: Bad address"
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:59:59 -0700

 Daniel Ortmann scribbled this message on Sep 15:
 > cat /proc/*/mem >/dev/null produces the following:
 > 
 > cat: /proc/0/mem: Bad address
 
 umm.. isn't this expected at /proc/*/mem is the actually memory, and
 the first page (at least) is usually unmapped)...
 
 > cat: /proc/1/mem: Bad address
 > cat: /proc/119/mem: Bad address
 > cat: /proc/122/mem: Bad address
 > cat: /proc/125/mem: Bad address
 > 
 > I expected 
 
 what did you expect??
 
 > cat /proc/*/mem >/dev/null
 
 just this?? 
 
 -- 
   John-Mark Gurney                          Modem/FAX: +1 541 683 6954
   Cu Networking
 
   Live in Peace, destroy Micro$oft, support free software, run FreeBSD