linux-kernel - Re: Possible 6.5 regression: Huge values for "commited memory"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 16 Sep 2023 15:25:40 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Michael Labiuk <michael.labiuk@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Christoph Biedl <linux-kernel.bfrz@...chmal.in-ulm.de>,
        Linux PARISC <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Possible 6.5 regression: Huge values for "commited memory"

On Sat, 16 Sept 2023 at 15:20, Michael Labiuk
<michael.labiuk@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> This patch fixes problem with counter for committed memory.
>
> Thanks!

Oh, no, thank *you*. With the bisection, this was fairly straightforward.

A silly mistake in the original patch, but hard to see without a clear
"this is when the problem was introduced".

           Linus