Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup

[Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>]

On Wednesday 10 May 2006 12:29, Klaus Weidner wrote:
> > This is at the wrong level. There may be people that are writing programs
> > that want any ouid. I want to stop the proliferation of field names and
> > follow a convention. Forget whether or not you think people will ever
> > want the information. We need a convention and then to follow it.
>
> Yes - but "new ouid" is also a different field name from "ouid", and
> unnecessarily hard to parse,

I am writing the parser. No one else should have to worry about it. Besides, 
we already do this *everywhere* except in this patch. I am just trying to 
keep the whole thing consistent. If you see anywhere that has new_something 
or old_something, please let me know. 

In all the places I looked, the value given is considered the new value. The 
old value is given as old=

Some examples:
"audit_rate_limit=%d old=%d by auid=%u"
"audit_backlog_limit=%d old=%d by auid=%u"

But then there is this:
audit_log_format(ab, "login pid=%d uid=%u " "old auid=%u new auid=%u",

Arguably, that could be re-written as:
audit_log_format(ab, "login pid=%d uid=%u " "auid=%u old auid=%u"

> especially since there's currently no well defined concept of name modifiers
> like "new"

Its used in many places, but you are more likely to run across old. The 
function in the specs that was intended to do this was:

const char *auparse_get_field_name_aux(auparse_state_t *au) - return  
supplemental information about the field's name.

-Steve