[nishs]

complementary openbsd resource:

https://man.openbsd.org/hier

some differences:

* openbsd does not use a /boot/ partition. instead it uses the bsd.* files in root.

* no /proc/ in its entirety in openbsd. use sysctl(3) instead.

* current openbsd does not have a separate /var/tmp/; it is a symbolic link to /tmp/.

[rollcat]

Note the (2004). Some things were removed/added/changed (/initrd, /sys, several things in /usr). Check <https://linux.die.net/man/7/hier> for an up-to-date resource.

[mananaysiempre]

> openbsd does not use a /boot/ partition. instead it uses the bsd.* files in root.

So there’s no equivalent to EFISTUB (the kernel as a UEFI executable, most easily accomplished by mounting the ESP at /boot)?

[ahoka]

The /proc equivalent in OpenBSD is ptrace(2).

[Retr0id]

Could you elaborate? To me there seems extremely little overlap there (I'm familiar with both the procfs and linux's ptrace APIs, but not OpenBSD's ptrace).

[dun44]

Ptrace could an equivalent of what /proc was originally supposed to be, before it got repurposed for a bunch of sysctl-like purposes.

[Retr0id]

Interesting. I didn't know much about /proc's original design intent, and Wikipedia indeed says "the design of procfs aimed to replace the ptrace system call used for process tracing", citing https://lucasvr.gobolinux.org/etc/Killian84-Procfs-USENIX.pd... ("Processes as Files", USENIX 1984)