Re: [PATCH 1/5] docs: correct documentation for %pK

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> 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 <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

-Kees

>
> Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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