Comment 1 for bug 1658133

I've confirmed that the correct fix here is to remove all access during the revert and reapply the access afterwards. My concern is the access code itself. It appears to be written in a way that makes all access rules volatile which would cause a different bug.

Fixing that bug will involve a lot of code change, and it will overlap with the fix for this bug so I'm not sure it makes sense to try to fix this first.