From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 10:02:31 -0400 Message-ID: <200605101002.31857.sgrubb@redhat.com> References: <445BB351.2040303@hp.com> <20060509203608.GF31457@w-m-p.com> <4460FFA6.4070506@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4460FFA6.4070506@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 16:46, Linda Knippers wrote: > > The original patches by Dustin and Linda had used "new_iuid=501" to > > differentiate the values, which I personally think was fine since it's > > unlikely that people want to be searching for those. > > And if they do, they're easy to find with an ausearch | grep. 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. > > If you absolutely want to avoid adding new tag names, an alternative > > would be to get rid of the "new " modifiers, and use the "type=" name to > > differentiate them. I don't want a proliferation of type names either. I think we have a lot of them and should try to use existing ones where possible. -Steve