From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Amy Griffis <amy.griffis@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 11:53:47 -0400
Message-ID: <20060509155347.GA29120@zk3.dec.com>
References: <445BB351.2040303@hp.com> <200605091105.38233.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<4460B173.1030206@hp.com> <200605091121.21457.sgrubb@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	k49FrtS3001956
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Tue, 9 May 2006 11:53:55 -0400
Received: from palrel11.hp.com (palrel11.hp.com [156.153.255.246])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	k49FrsBW023028
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Tue, 9 May 2006 11:53:54 -0400
Received: from cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com (cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com [15.1.29.21])
	by palrel11.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3513398B5
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Tue,  9 May 2006 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dill.zko.hp.com (dill.zko.hp.com [16.116.96.242])
	by cacrelint01.ptp.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5F7340BA
	for <linux-audit@redhat.com>; Tue,  9 May 2006 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200605091121.21457.sgrubb@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:21:21AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 May 2006 11:12, Linda Knippers wrote:
> > How it is easier/better?
> 
> Much easier for the user. For example, the user might be searching for uid. 
> Should the user have to specify new_uid ? Would they also need to search for 
> old_uid? Would they have to know all the possible variations on uid?

It seems like the underscore would actually make things easier for the
user.  If they want just the 'uid' field, they search on 'uid'.  If
they want all the possible variations on uid, they could use a regular
expression.