Re: Performance of libauparse
On Wednesday 01 October 2008 12:08:44 Matthew Booth wrote:
> Close, but not quite. I say we can't change the kernel
without complete
> backwards compatibility. Show me the right solution and we can get
> there, we just can't throw away what's already there.
My other mail listed 6 ways in which audit *has already broken*
userspace through non-backwards compatibility.
Are they verified broken or just that something changed? Backwards
compatibility was worked in wherever possible.
The situation is still very messy, and this will continue to happen
because
the protocol has evolved organically rather than through deliberate design,
and was not designed for extensibility.
There was a deliberate design. Compactness and extensibility are sometimes at
odds, though. But this is straying way away from your original post about
performance improvements - which I would find to be topic worth talking
about. I will not participate in any rehash of past discussions about parsing
or representation of data.
-Steve