On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 04:11:08 PM LC Bruzenak wrote: > On 10/22/2014 03:44 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > 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. ;) > > I have no doubt my old code looks like Steve's first example, not the > second. > But as I said, code can be changed if the assumptions about ordering are > thrown out.
Well, like I said, It's probably safer that way as the code will work regardless. Time to break bad habits :) > You're making a pretty big splash over here Paul! Very impressive... > > :-) Yeah "splash" ... it's been an interesting week. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
