On Thursday, October 23, 2014 09:19:49 AM LC Bruzenak wrote: > On 10/22/2014 04:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Well, like I said, It's probably safer that way as the code will work > > regardless. Time to break bad habits :) > > I hear you. But there's working and there's working well. > As long as we don't suffer a search response degradation by changing the > assumptive order, as I said, I'm OK with going back and reworking code. > If it makes searching real data unusable, it's now broken some > operational stuff.
Performance is a big deal, I think we've all been hearing that for some time now. I get it, and it is something that is and will remain *a* priority. However, this fixed ordering is something that is Just Plain Wrong and is likely to make life much more difficult for us as we try to improve audit. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit