Re: Hidden Processes

From: Dragan Cvetkovic (d1r2a3g4a5n.NOSPAM@SPAM.t6h7t.net)
Date: 04/07/03


From: Dragan Cvetkovic <d1r2a3g4a5n.NOSPAM@SPAM.t6h7t.net>
Date: 07 Apr 2003 13:34:25 -0400

Lew_Pitcher@td.com (Lew Pitcher) writes:

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:59:44 +0100, in comp.os.linux.security, "Alex Banks"
> <alex@alexbanks.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jem Berkes" <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote in message
> >news:Xns93566303F5A66jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73...
> >
> >> AFAIK, /proc/pid directories contain all the information on running
> >> processes. If you can read the contents of those directories, you can find
> >> all the standard info on processes though it may look more cryptic.
> >
> >Thanks for that Jem. Unfortunately, there is no /proc/pid dir on my new
> >server.
>
> Are you sure that your /etc/fstab contains a line to mount the procfs? It
> should look like
> none /proc proc defaults 0 0
>

Or it might be that Alex was simply looking for /proc/pid directory. There
is no such things. What is meant is e.g. /proc/738 which is a directory
correspoonding to the pid 738.

Is there Linux nowdays without procfs? In the old days, procfs was optional
and there were two sets of ps: one that supported /proc and the other which
did work without it.

Bye, Dragan

-- 
Dragan Cvetkovic, 
To be or not to be is true. G. Boole      No it isn't.  L. E. J. Brouwer