Re: sysutils/lsof Author Question (for CLANG)....

On 2012-11-08 09:20, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> 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).
Remember also that lsof is portable between MANY flavors of *nix.