On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:57 PM Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can we not just assume that if that happens, that the kernel should just > treat the context as if it were the context of the unlabeled isid. No, because then a simple typo or other error in a context provided by a user or application would end up being handled as the unlabeled context instead of producing an error return that can be handled by the application or user. > I mean that is what it boils down to anyway: everything always needs a > valid context. so might as well treat invalid contexts as unlabeled > isids? Not sure how "state" is relevant here as invalid is invalid. The state is whether the context was previously valid and used by the application.
