Re: PID Wrap <strangeness>

• Next message: Bill Wendling: "Re: Capabilities"
• Previous message: Jeff DeFouw: "tasklet race condition"
• 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 Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 05:31:51PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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 to the sysadm -
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.

Andries

--
% echo $$
105113
%
-
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: Bill Wendling: "Re: Capabilities"
• Previous message: Jeff DeFouw: "tasklet race condition"
• 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 - 21:00:32 EST