/proc hidden features documentation [Was: Quasi-(un)deletion question]

2004-02-16 Thread Jan Minar
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:25:08AM +0100, Martin Dickopp wrote: Tim Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OMG. That does work. I didn't try it because the file looks like a symlink in 'ls' -- a similar process with symlinks on a normal filesystem will produce different results: Yes, /proc is

Re: /proc hidden features documentation [Was: Quasi-(un)deletion question]

2004-02-16 Thread s. keeling
Incoming from Jan Minar: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:25:08AM +0100, Martin Dickopp wrote: Yes, /proc is quite different from other filesystems in many ways. :) Is it documented? I wasn't able to find anything. Particularly, Anything? You didn't install man pages? man proc works for me

Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Tim Otten
The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. The file still existed because the torrent client had it open. I could use 'lsof' to get an inode number -- but I needed some way to get access to that

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Jan Minar
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:20:55AM -0500, Tim Otten wrote: The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. The file still existed because the torrent client had it open. I could use 'lsof' to get

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Paul Johnson
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:20:55AM -0500, Tim Otten wrote: The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. Is it possible to access the file using a

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Martin Dickopp
Tim Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. The file still existed because the torrent client had it open. I could use 'lsof' to get an inode number -- but

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Colin Watson
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 10:41:41AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 09:20:55AM -0500, Tim Otten wrote: The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. Is it possible to access

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread s. keeling
Incoming from Martin Dickopp: Tim Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The other day, I did something really stupid. I started a download with BitTorrent, and, half-way through, deleted the file it was downloading. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ echo This is a test. t.txt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ tail -f

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Tim Otten
(1) debugfs(8) or equivalent Ah! debugfs looks perfect. I probably couldn't have added an entry for the file (because the filesystem was mounted, and the man page doesn't say whether it's safe to edit a live filesystem), but the 'dump' command worked fine in a test that I just did. (2)

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Bijan Soleymani
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 12:11:18PM -0700, s. keeling wrote: However, that's just standard *nix filesystem behaviour. You can rm 'til the cows come home, but as long as one symlink to the data remains, the data remains as well. Hard link not symlink :) Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Jan Minar
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:03:06PM -0500, Tim Otten wrote: file (because the filesystem was mounted, and the man page doesn't say whether it's safe to edit a live filesystem), but the 'dump' command worked fine in a test that I just did. It's not. You did it the most right way. -- Jan Minar

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Tim Otten
/proc/PID/fd seems to work just fine; see transcript below. OMG. That does work. I didn't try it because the file looks like a symlink in 'ls' -- a similar process with symlinks on a normal filesystem will produce different results: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$ echo This is a test t.txt [EMAIL

Re: Quasi-(un)deletion question

2004-02-15 Thread Martin Dickopp
Tim Otten [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: /proc/PID/fd seems to work just fine; see transcript below. OMG. That does work. I didn't try it because the file looks like a symlink in 'ls' -- a similar process with symlinks on a normal filesystem will produce different results: Yes, /proc is quite