linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090817063202.GO5039@cr0.nay.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:32:02 +0800
From:	Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tatsuhiro Aoshima <tatsu.pc@...il.com>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: let task status file print utime and stime.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:22:06PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:21 +0800
>Amerigo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah... in fact, I expected 'ps' can report this, however, surprisingly
>> it doesn't have this, at least not what I expect (unless I miss
>> something obvious).
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >In another thinking, in old days, /proc/<pid>/stat was enough because most of
>> >users uses scanf() or some C langage to read fixed-format data.
>> >/proc/<pid>/status is useful for some script languages which has 
>> >good parser per line. 
>> >
>> 
>> Well... I think this work should be left to 'ps', e.g.
>> 
>>   ps -o pid,utime,stime
>> 
>> 'ps' is responsible to read /proc/<pid>/stat for the user.
>> 
>Hmm, personally, I don't like 'ps' and its unified filter.
>
>When I want to know status of a process of PID,
># ps -o pid,utime,stime  PID
>
>'ps' scans *all* process and filter PID. (try #strace ps)
>I like checking /proc/<pid>/<something> without 'ps' in an environment
>where thousands of processes runs.

Sure, we already have '-p' for 'ps', e.g.

 ps -p 1 -o pid,user,comm

Enjoy. :-)

Anyway, I would like to see 'ps' to have 'utime,stime' field, on
my machine, its output for 'utime,stime' looks wrong.

Maybe we should Cc procps developers?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/