From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: new auparse question
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:49:46 -0400
Message-ID: <201108311649.46375.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <1314822708.2094.127.camel@lcb>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1314822708.2094.127.camel@lcb>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/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, August 31, 2011 04:31:48 PM LC Bruzenak wrote:
> So my question is - is this a bug (I would think so) or should I always
> precede any auparse call sequence with at least one fresh
> auparse_first_field call?

A segfault is a bug as far as this library is concerned. I know other libraries let 
you segfault if you do something wrong. I'll try to make a reproducer and see what's 
going on.

-Steve