[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIdZKSLidg1o89qX@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:43:05 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
Disha Goel <disgoel@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 2/5] ext4: Remove PAGE_SIZE assumption of folio from
mpage_submit_folio
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?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists