linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] spi: loopback-test: Don't use %pK through printk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <175500548927.70594.3224068513229852904.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:31:29 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: loopback-test: Don't use %pK through printk

On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 14:10:21 +0200, 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 locks in atomic contexts.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: loopback-test: Don't use %pK through printk
      commit: b832b19318534bb4f1673b24d78037fee339c679

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark