From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: comparing record ids in auparse
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:23:59 -0400
Message-ID: <200709051223.59958.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <1189008706.15928.12.camel@junko.usersys.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1189008706.15928.12.camel@junko.usersys.redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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 Wednesday 05 September 2007 12:11:46 John Dennis wrote:
> In the functions auparse_timestamp_compare() and events_are_equal() the
> host field is not checked, is that by design or omission? 

When the API was designed, the node was not part of the records. Its only 
since audit-1.6 that it was. I had not considered adding a node check since 
the function was originally there to add comparing two datatypes that are not 
straight forward.

> Should two different events from two different hosts be comparable?

In a consolidated log, they are not equal. I suppose that should be fixed in 
the next release.


> Are we too far down the road to call this object an 'event_id'?

Yes.

-Steve