Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:02:31AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
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.
Yes - but "new ouid" is also a different field name from "ouid", and
unnecessarily hard to parse, especially since there's currently no well
defined concept of name modifiers like "new".
> > 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.
A list of existing record types would be useful. In this case, it's a
legitimate difference between "current object attributes" and "requested
new object attributes" sub-records that need to be distinct for the
syscall event, so using different types sounds appropriate.
-Klaus