[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lsof outputs nothing



On Sun 17 May 2020 at 09:34:42 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 17 May 2020 06:25:20 Reco wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 01:04:23PM +0300, aprekates wrote:
> > > In Buster lsof wont report anything
> > >
> > > $ sudo  lsof
> > > lsof: WARNING: can't stat() fuse file system /run/user/1000/doc
> > >       Output information may be incomplete.
> >
> > Most likely this fuse filesystem was not mounted with "allow_other"
> > option. Its contents is inaccessble to root, hence lsof behaviour is
> > expected.
> >
> > Do you really need "*sudo* lsof"? Ordinary lsof will do its job just
> > fine as long as it's your user's processes that you're interested in.

So is this a case where some helpful software, like a DE, has unset that
option for the user? I seem to get it set as the default:

I set: ro,nofail,umask=022,uid=1000,gid=1000
I see: ro,relatime,user_id=0,group_id=0,default_permissions,allow_other,blksize=4096

That's mounting ntfs filesystems from fstab with AIUI fuse (fuseblk filetype).
Open files on these filesystems are seen in the lsof output by root
and whoever has the files open, as I had kind of expected.

> If running your own webserver, like I do, faceing the net, in a 
> permissions sandbox, then the answer is a resounding yes. I'm on a cable 
> dsl so I'm online all the time.  And with a limited bandwidth, its 
> paramount that I keep the bots blocked else they use up all my upload 
> bandwidth. I don't mind them indexing the place, but way too many think 
> its their right to mirror everything they can find and that can easily 
> use up my available bandwidth. But in the last 6 months they've learned 
> how to keep their identities better wrapped, so my regular logs don't 
> show them, nor identify the files they are sucking. But I still see the 
> bandwidth being used. Apache2's logging sucks.
> 
> So yes Reco, sudo lsof can be very helpfull.

Presumably your circumstances are different from those of the OP.
(I'm not sure of the relevance of your internet connection etc.)

Cheers,
David.


Reply to: