Wiadomość napisana przez Andriy Gapon w dniu 8 lis 2012, o godz. 15:17: > on 08/11/2012 01:00 Greg 'groggy' Lehey said the following: >> On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 16:35:22 -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote: >>> On 2012-11-07 15:39, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 10:32:23 -0500, Benjamin Kaduk >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Once again, attempting to use kernel internals outside of the >>>>> supported interfaces is just asking for trouble; I do not understand >>>>> why this message is not sinking in over the course of your previous >>>>> mails to these lists, so I will not try to belabor it further. >>>> >>>> IIRC lsof is a special case that always needs to be built with >>>> intimate knowledge of the kernel. >>> >>> This is VERY true. Since some of the information lsof uses has >>> no API/ABI/KPI/KBI to get, it grovels around in the kernel. >> >> And until those interfaces are provided, I think this is legitimate. >> If there's anybody out there who hasn't used lsof, you should try it. >> It's good. > > Just curious why lsof can't use interfaces that e.g. fstat/sockstat/etc use? > Those base utilities do not seem to experience as much trouble as lsof. Note that fstat(8) does not report file paths. On the other hand, procstat(8) does. It looks like "procstat -fa" and "procstat -va" together provide the same information lsof(8) does; unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to show a "merged" output for files opened (-f) and files mmapped, but closed (-v). -- If you cut off my head, what would I say? Me and my head, or me and my body?Received on Thu Nov 08 2012 - 14:20:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC