Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:57:50 -0800 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Dhee Reddy <dhee@myrealbox.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: No entries in /proc :: feature or problem ?? Message-ID: <20021122215750.GB11011@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021122083000.81249U-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <87wun6ywdr.fsf@myrealbox.com> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021122083000.81249U-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>: > The reasons to deprecate procfs are many-fold -- not least that there are > existing interfaces in the kernel that provide most or all of its features > at a substantially lower risk. You just have to see the kernel-related > security advisories for FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, etc, over the last five > years to understand why we want to turn it off if we can. :-) There has > also been a concerted effort to move userland system monitoring tools away > from using /dev/kvm (direct kernel memory access) and towards using the > sysctl() MIB interface, reducing the level of privilege required to run > the monitoring tools. By the way, what do you think is the most reasonable way to implement things like /proc/$pid/map without procfs? I don't want to use procfs if I can avoid it, but on the other hand I like some of its debugging features. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021122215750.GB11011>