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 -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
