On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 02:20:51PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Restricted pointers ("%pK") are not meant to be used through printk().
> It can unintentionally expose security sensitive, raw pointer values.
>
> Use regular pointer formatting instead.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250113171731-dc10e3c1-da64-4af0-b767-7c7070468023@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
So really this is just a revert of 2f964780c03b ("USB: core: replace %p
with %pK"), right?
Why not express it that way, and explain _why_ it's somehow now ok to
use %p when previously it wasn't?
thanks,
greg k-h
