> So are OK with the checks here? I'm ok with figuring out whether we can do this nicely, yes. > > Because right now device access management seems its own form of > > mandatory access control. > > I'm currently testing an updated version which has incorporated the locking > changes already mention by Alex and the change which avoids setting SB_I_NODEV > in fs/super.c. Not having to hack around SB_I_NODEV would be pretty crucial imho. It's a core security assumption so we need to integrate with it nicely.
