On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > Current documentation indicates that %pK prints a leading '0x'. This is > not the case. > > Correct documentation for printk specifier %pK.
Yup, quite true. :) Acked-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> -Kees > > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <[email protected]> > --- > Documentation/printk-formats.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/printk-formats.txt > b/Documentation/printk-formats.txt > index 361789df51ec..b4fe3c5f3b44 100644 > --- a/Documentation/printk-formats.txt > +++ b/Documentation/printk-formats.txt > @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Kernel Pointers > > :: > > - %pK 0x01234567 or 0x0123456789abcdef > + %pK 01234567 or 0123456789abcdef > > For printing kernel pointers which should be hidden from unprivileged > users. The behaviour of ``%pK`` depends on the ``kptr_restrict sysctl`` - see > -- > 2.7.4 > -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
