[arch-general] /etc/rc.local: "chown user: /dev/sda10" /etc/fstab: "defaults, owner, noauto"

[Joe(theWordy)Philbrook]

/etc/rc.local: "chown user: /dev/sda10" /etc/fstab: "defaults,owner,noauto" 

Or more accurately:

/etc/rc.local: "chown jtwdyp: /dev/disk/by-label/j10_lap-10"

I've been allowing only my normal user account to mount 3 such user "owned"
partitions in various distros this way {without needing to use sudo} for
years. I know that ever since USB devices made static /dev/* lists unusual,
the ownership of any partition gets set to root during root. But I've
always been able to count on my root script to chown them back, returning
ownership to the data owner, if {depending on the distro} I either sourced it
in some rc.local file, OR if some debian based distro didn't like rc.local
script's I'd just symlink it with something like: 

ln -s /root/bin/fix_dev /etc/rcS.d/S38fix_dev

I only needed to take care that my root script 'chown'ed the partitions
AFTER the device names in /dev had been dynamically created. And it worked.

I was pleased to note that Arch evidently does think a rc.local is an
appropriate place for local initialization stuff to happen. However it's
come to my attention that about 5 out of the last 25 times I've booted Arch
only 2 of the 3 partitions 'chown'ed in my /root/bin/fix_dev script can be
mounted by my user account. (unless I use root account to manualy rerun 
the /root/bin script...)

On the occasions when a user script's attempt to mount the 3rd such partition
fails {with an error message telling me that only root can do that} the other
two such partitions mount just fine. 

Is there something special I need to do to get Arch to *_consistently_* respect
all three chown commands???  I really dislike the idea of changing the fstab entry
from "owner" to "user" even if since the mountpoint is in a subdir of /home/jtwdyp,
I could just rely on: 

cmod 700 {the mount points parent dir}

along with the file permisions within the partition itself, to keep the data
private. Somehow it just wouldn't feel right to extend the mount permisions to just
any user even though this multi-boot linux box is my personal computer that nobody
else uses... 

Recommendations anyone?

-- 
|  ~^~   ~^~
|  <?>   <?>       Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
|      ^                J(tWdy)P
|    \___/         <<jtwdyp at ttlc.net>>