Re: The history of the name 'Root' (as in superuser)?

From: mgrd (mgrd_at_gmx.net)
Date: 12/15/04

  • Next message: mgrd: "Re: The history of the name 'Root' (as in superuser)?" 
    Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:02:43 +0100

    Lew Pitcher wrote:
    >> mgrd wrote:
    >
    >>[..]
    >>>More likely because the root process that manages (directly or
    >>>indirectly) /all/
    >>>other processes runs under uid 0, and in order to start the initial
    >>>process for
    >>>any other uid, the parent process must be run as uid 0. These two make
    >>>uid 0 the
    >>>'root' of all process management in Unix.

    >>
    >>Hmm, but the parent process is init running with uid 1.
    >
    > ITYM "pid 1".

    damn, typo .. of course I meant "uid 0" with "pid 1"

    > On all the Unix systems I've worked on, init runs under the userid (uid) 0
    >
    >>On some unix implementations there's a swapper with uid 0,
    >
    > ITYM "pid 0"

    yep

    > I've never noticed which uid swapper runs under, but I'd guess it's uid 0 as well.

    Me neither, but I read about it in Rich Stephens "Adv. Progrmng. in a
    Unix Env.".
    But it's described as not a real process but rather a part of the
    kernel, IIRC.

  • Next message: mgrd: "Re: The history of the name 'Root' (as in superuser)?"

    Relevant Pages