On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:15 AM Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:49 PM Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > On 1/25/19 5:06 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > > These BUG_ONs do not really protect from any catastrophic situation so
> > > there is no need to have them there.
> >
> > They
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:49 PM Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 1/25/19 5:06 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > These BUG_ONs do not really protect from any catastrophic situation so
> > there is no need to have them there.
>
> They are to catch bugs in callers that pass requested==0. That is
> always
On 1/25/19 5:06 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
These BUG_ONs do not really protect from any catastrophic situation so
there is no need to have them there.
They are to catch bugs in callers that pass requested==0. That is
always indicative of a bug in the caller (e.g. failed to correctly
compute
These BUG_ONs do not really protect from any catastrophic situation so
there is no need to have them there.
Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek
---
security/selinux/avc.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/selinux/avc.c b/security/selinux/avc.c
index
