From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 15:11:25 -0400 Message-ID: <200605091511.25780.sgrubb@redhat.com> References: <445BB351.2040303@hp.com> <20060509181523.GD31457@w-m-p.com> <4460DF17.8010304@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4460DF17.8010304@hp.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Linda Knippers Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Tuesday 09 May 2006 14:27, Linda Knippers wrote: > I wasn't actually proposing that we do that. =A0I was really trying to > make the point that including the iuid and new_iuid fields in with > the results of a uid search, which is what Steve was proposing as a > good thing, doesn't seem right to me. =A0 OK, big picture time...the fields are used by the search API. The applica= tion=20 that calls the library can then consult other information to decide if th= is=20 is a record of interest. Ausearch is one such application, but I'm not sa= ying=20 that ausearch at the command line will return all those - I'm talking abo= ut=20 the search API. In retrospect, the user I was referring to is the person=20 doing the programming. Sorry for misleading you on this. Bottom line, for the search API, I want all similar types to have a commo= n=20 field name. They can have a modifier adjacent to them. >Maybe I should use a5, a6, ..., Please no. Let's keep it as iuid or ouid. I'd personally prefer to drop i= uid=20 so we can consolidate field types. ouid means "owner's uid". -Steve