On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 03:34:24 PM LC Bruzenak wrote:
On 10/22/2014 03:06 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > But it illustrates the point. There are tools that depend on an
>> > ordering and format. There are more programs that just ausearch that
>> > needs to be considered if the fields change. For example, Someone
>> > could do things like this:
>> >
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, "auid");
>> > retval = auparse_next_field(au);
>> > retval = auparse_next_field(au);
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, res");
>> >
>> > Where, if the field ordering can't be guaranteed, the code becomes:
>> >
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, "auid");
>> > retval = auparse_first_field(au);
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, "pid");
>> > retval = auparse_first_field(au);
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, "uid");
>> > retval = auparse_first_field(au);
>> > retval = auparse_find_field(au, res");
>
> In my mind the latter code is more robust and preferable.
OK; I swear if you change this I'm going to parse EVERY field straight
into a SQLite file first, since I'd have to go change code anyway.
:-)
:)
I have code which is based on the examples, from years back, which
believe there is order. It can be changed if needed; rather not but could.
I suspect there are others...
We haven't changed anything yet, but I strongly believe we need to do away
with field ordering. The good news is that if you explicitly search for the
field instead of relying on a fixed order the code should be more robust and
work either way. ;)
--
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat