confirmed this passes in rhel ci: https://jenkins.dockerproject.org/job/Tonis%20Docker%20debugginig/145/

LGTM

but if selinuxfs is present it is still required

As a second thought, I don't think this test case should check the presence of selabel vfs option. It is just some artefact from selinux which might or might not be added by the kernel.

@kolyshkin Is there a case when it is not added when selinux is enabled and mounted? If not, it could help us catch cases where we break the selinux detection code.

If not, it could help us catch cases where we break the selinux detection code.

Well, adding the seclabel option is kernel job, and selinux detection code is opencontainers/selinux and this is a unit test for pkg/mount, testing that its methods Mount() and GetMountInfo() work, this is why I prefer to keep it simple and focused.

Having said that, the above is not a very strong opinion so I'm fine with either approach.

@kolyshkin Going for contrived examples, it is also possible the GetMounts (that is a public method in this pkg) has a bug that skips parsing seclabel. That doesn't have any effect on systems without selinux. But on systems with selinux this would start to break things and with current logic would break the test as well.

ping @kolyshkin PTAL

This one can be closed as #36750 is merged

Thanks! Closing