Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>

• Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Oops on 2.2.14 While Doing Direct I/O."
• Previous message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: Kernel bugs found using inspect tool"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > > On Linux 2.3.41 (haven't checked others) when the PID wraps past
> > > 32,767 the next PID is 300. It is not the next-available low one.
> > a process inetd with pid 150 was started at boot time;
> > a process inetd with pid 12053 was not.
> > Having this kind of information may help a bit in maintaining security.
>
> Huh? "ps" is capable of sorting by starting time, which is a much
> better idea than relying on the pids behaving *any* particular way.

     But if someone has obtained root, the system clock is not necessarily
trustworthy anymore. ;-)

     I would say if we want this functionality, it would be useful to be
able to set the "minimum pid" via proc or devfs. Of course, I'm not sure
that wouldn't be kernel bloat.

-Jacob

-- 
"Heh.  You mean this is Stef's source code?"
  -User Friendly
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Oops on 2.2.14 While Doing Direct I/O."
• Previous message: Jamie Lokier: "Re: Kernel bugs found using inspect tool"
• Maybe in reply to: Richard B. Johnson: "PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Reply: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:34 EST