• provectus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Did you know openBSD does not have this folder? I think the BSD’s do not use /proc. I do not know why though.

    • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That raises the question of how their ps, top, lsof and such work, since afaik in Linux they read from /proc.

      P.S. Looks like BSDs tug at the kernel via syscalls, namely sysctl and also the ‘kvm interface’ in the case of MacOS (not sure what ‘kvm’ thing is meant here). Seems vaguely reasonable, since procfs also queries the kernel for the info, so about the same resources would be used, perhaps even with the overhead of filesystem traversal and string-numbers conversion.

      • provectus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I might be mistaken, but I think kvm stands for kernel virtual machine. Having no /proc, and interacting with sysctl instead sounds more secure, IMO.

        • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Some pseudofiles under /proc are only readable by the user running the process, and of course root can read everything. So it’s the standard Unix security model, afaics.

          For example, any process’ command-line arguments are famously visible to everyone, while the environment variables only to the user of the process.