From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:37 -0400 Received: from mail.erisksecurity.com ([208.179.59.234]:14914 "EHLO Tidal.eRiskSecurity.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3B7AE0D6.2090804@erisksecurity.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:34 -0400 From: David Ford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3+) Gecko/20010815 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: WANTED: Re: VM lockup with 2.4.8 / 2.4.8pre8 In-Reply-To: <20010814220545.D31070@pasky.ji.cz> ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 02:55:42PM -0300 <9lc0ek$l5k$1@ns1.clouddancer.com> <20010815193521.4DDE8783F5@mail.clouddancer.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)@localhost.localdomain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Also consider that many places use randomized pids. You can only assume a few things about pids and that has to be done by evaluating kernel threads and the init pid. David Colonel wrote: >>I also propose to half badness of processes with pid < 1000 - those >>processes are usually also important, because they are called during >>boot-time and they usually handle important system affairs. >> > >The belief that boot started processes remain under a pid < 1000 is >flawed. Simple example: the postfix mail server. >