Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:10:38 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mike A. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: PID Wrap <strangeness> |
| |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Guest section DW wrote:
>> > > 32,767 the next PID is 300. It is not the next-available low one. >> > > >> > > Does anybody know why? > >> > This behaviour was introduced in 2.1.37. >> > There is no very good reason. But it separates processes that >> > were started early (init, syslogd, atd, inetd, lpd, cron, etc.) >> > from the usual processes. That may be useful > >> Huh? "ps" is capable of sorting by starting time, which is a much >> better idea than relying on the pids behaving *any* particular way. > >Of course. >But clearly the author of this patch thought it useful >to introduce this behaviour. And it certainly does not harm. > >[What does harm a little bit however, is the fact that we wrap. >For security reasons I would much prefer a 31-bit pid. >However, Linus did not apply my (trivial) patch, not sure precisely why, >perhaps just 2.4 freeze. It is a good time now, now that ipc problems >have been cleared up.]
Resend your patch to Linus then. I too think high PID is a good idea.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
Suspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- 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/
| |