From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7B872F2707; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750195859; cv=none; b=alYbZKinaB8XPbc+igu9SkbZ5ujR2DtYheeJ8FhBjz9DR50JQJeQKvy4a1AZo8L1/ZGSYSCVpDairz9v89ak8AMya6FOLv8Jvl4n93anxYUojDwEQ4JrUWFxBV80xWF0VKO9wlI1iiAuxzK9zYNHH9Qq+PIr4XmAUPzMCwfgJ3s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750195859; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+AVJtkADX1ZsehTSMEkzz8csKFgS7fgQrxOyASGuj1o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=hENYJ5CZvLX2mVYc7vlFU+gr7zb9IUI0CWynmXT8AKACv2+jq+7N5QYJRrekrOUIEMRCLSRjukTeQyGjT4fs5R41xV08eB6AtNBsVG7cNwepJQpXkTp+ybzD/nYJXP2AWzJnDnGmgk2SoX9ECSk5RM5YQtteXtN/J0HxumhZSCk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mThStFc6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mThStFc6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCBF3C4CEEE; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:30:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1750195859; bh=+AVJtkADX1ZsehTSMEkzz8csKFgS7fgQrxOyASGuj1o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mThStFc6jCikXs2uo6W+NF5YvEORiZDeUdOBUgkPD/A/3O+gudg3d+XCDTm99JtC4 FeaGP7377as3P+D08h45he9kHwINuNuNzY7sk9jByZBkwd6LOqGdfcDwFBYL3szzPm J9q0Xb+WbJXdRnHWuBvUfxi3nZCvMwh/XTRMgTl+SvsAgggqMvYINARU+17BFaozh/ h+z5r1/1InrCvfUrpG5iHnETApvHtPHCzqQ9G5x6TIzBVSK6H0R0jhafv5ByU8/XlX UKNF92qNbFaJCfwjA0gwVzPROq9Am2dcZUof+UDxZnfePW0vLmJNZ0WtN4lPRHfjNX iHXBhKK/ZbNHw== From: Bjorn Andersson To: Mathieu Poirier , Patrice Chotard , =?UTF-8?q?Thomas=20Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Don't use %pK through printk Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:30:52 -0500 Message-ID: <175019584837.714789.5721540056396177513.b4-ty@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.49.0 In-Reply-To: <20250611-restricted-pointers-remoteproc-v1-1-f059097ba663@linutronix.de> References: <20250611-restricted-pointers-remoteproc-v1-1-f059097ba663@linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 12:03:06 +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, thanks! [1/1] remoteproc: Don't use %pK through printk commit: b0dc512ab7ba177442cfec4a65b2681355d7cb64 Best regards, -- Bjorn Andersson