[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f4f534a-a9d1-4c4d-ba81-d81d9f0e242b@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:59:17 +0200
From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
CC: Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@...nel.org>, Loic Poulain
<loic.poulain@...aro.org>, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
"Francesco Dolcini" <francesco@...cini.it>, Tony Nguyen
<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, "David S.
Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub
Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<ath11k@...ts.infradead.org>, <ath12k@...ts.infradead.org>,
<wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] ice: Don't use %pK through printk or
tracepoints
On 4/14/25 10:26, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> In the past %pK was preferable to %p as it would not leak raw pointer
> values into the kernel log.
> Since commit ad67b74d2469 ("printk: hash addresses printed with %p")
> the regular %p has been improved to avoid this issue.
> Furthermore, restricted pointers ("%pK") were never meant to be used
> through printk(). They can still unintentionally leak raw pointers or
> acquire sleeping looks in atomic contexts.
>
> Switch to the regular pointer formatting which is safer and
> easier to reason about.
> There are still a few users of %pK left, but these use it through seq_file,
> for which its usage is safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
thank you!
Acked-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists