From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 24 06:44:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA00783 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:44:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca (tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca [207.181.89.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA00775 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 06:44:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from taob@tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca) Received: (from taob@localhost) by tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA00616; Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:43:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao X-Sender: taob@tor-dev1.nbc.netcom.ca To: Robert Watson cc: FREEBSD-CURRENT Subject: Re: Limit 'ps' to show only user's processes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Robert Watson wrote: > > I don't think there is any way to hide the existence of other > processes -- a process that performs: > > int i, lasti; > while (1) { > i = fork(); > if (!i) { > exit(0); > } > if (i != lasti + 1) { > > .... On a slightly different track, using randomized pid's would limit the usefulness of such a scan, although with a fast enough fork(), you could still map the entire pid space and find the "holes". -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message