On Monday, 21 September 2009 22:28:23 Jamie Lokier wrote:

It would be logical if fanotify could block and ack those [mount & umount
events] in the same way as it can block and ack other accesses (with the
usual filtering rules on which inodes trigger events, and which don't or are
cached).

Hmm. To me, fanotify is about file contents first of all: this is what 
fanotify wants to be able to veto. Directory events seem reasonable to add 
for inotify compatibility, but I see no need for access decisions on them. 
Even less so for mounts and unmounts. (Besides, we can't hold any vfs locks 
while asking fanotify so those operations wouldn't be atomic, anyway.)

Thanks,
Andreas