On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process) > where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the > process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess). > > If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert > their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally hides the > existence of the other process, and therefore having some calls that > pretend it's not there is simply inconsistent.
I'm guessing it's a deliberate change to prevent the information leakage between jails. Kris
pgp0723nvyM1m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
