Performance of libauparse

[Steve Grubb]

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