Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:43:05 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
        Disha Goel <disgoel@linux.ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/5] ext4: Remove PAGE_SIZE assumption of folio from
 mpage_submit_folio
Message-ID: <ZIdZKSLidg1o89qX@casper.infradead.org>
References: <87a5x6hy8l.fsf@doe.com>
 <87wn08pp7y.fsf@doe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87wn08pp7y.fsf@doe.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:55:37PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> It is easily recreatable if we have one thread doing buffered-io +
> sync and other thread trying to truncate down inode->i_size.
> Kernel panic maybe is happening only with -O encrypt mkfs option +
> -o test_dummy_encryption mount option, but the size - folio_pos(folio)
> is definitely wrong because inode->i_size is not protected in writeback path.

Did you not see the email I sent right before you sent your previous
email?