Eric Schrock wrote: >On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0400, Brandorr wrote: > > >>+1,000,000 for integrating LSOF. (My vote doesn't count, but I'm sure >>you will find many others that will support/sponsor you if you choose >>to take this on instead.) >> >> >> > >Can you explain why '+1,000,000'? Is it because it makes it possible to >answer this particular question (what process is listening on a port), >or is there some other greater functionality beyond pfiles(1) + this >RFE that this would provide? >
It's *the* _standard_ tool for doing this kind of job. Not having lsof is like being without bash and telling people to use ksh (if that helps put the problem in perspective.) >I ask because the interfaces lsof uses >(namely /dev/kmem) are too brittle to suport in any coherent fashion. >Integrating LSOF would be more than checking in code. We'd have to >provide stable interfaces (or at last *an* interface that could be >contracted) and modify the lsof code to use those, which is a >non-trivial amount of work. > > Why not bundle lsof with the kernel and just require that it is rebuilt and shipped out every time the kernel is patched? Darren
