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.

Switch to the regular pointer formatting which is safer and
easier to reason about.
There are still a few users of %pK left, but these use it through seq_file,
for which its usage is safe.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-loopback-test.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-loopback-test.c b/drivers/spi/spi-loopback-test.c
index 7dd92deffe3fb1c2254777ce332c2eb52554aecf..e0b131aa29b62e9661be01b551e1260a7b0bbdfa 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-loopback-test.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-loopback-test.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static void spi_test_dump_message(struct spi_device *spi,
 	int i;
 	u8 b;
 
-	dev_info(&spi->dev, "  spi_msg@%pK\n", msg);
+	dev_info(&spi->dev, "  spi_msg@%p\n", msg);
 	if (msg->status)
 		dev_info(&spi->dev, "    status:        %i\n",
 			 msg->status);
@@ -456,15 +456,15 @@ static void spi_test_dump_message(struct spi_device *spi,
 		 msg->actual_length);
 
 	list_for_each_entry(xfer, &msg->transfers, transfer_list) {
-		dev_info(&spi->dev, "    spi_transfer@%pK\n", xfer);
+		dev_info(&spi->dev, "    spi_transfer@%p\n", xfer);
 		dev_info(&spi->dev, "      len:    %i\n", xfer->len);
-		dev_info(&spi->dev, "      tx_buf: %pK\n", xfer->tx_buf);
+		dev_info(&spi->dev, "      tx_buf: %p\n", xfer->tx_buf);
 		if (dump_data && xfer->tx_buf)
 			spi_test_print_hex_dump("          TX: ",
 						xfer->tx_buf,
 						xfer->len);
 
-		dev_info(&spi->dev, "      rx_buf: %pK\n", xfer->rx_buf);
+		dev_info(&spi->dev, "      rx_buf: %p\n", xfer->rx_buf);
 		if (dump_data && xfer->rx_buf)
 			spi_test_print_hex_dump("          RX: ",
 						xfer->rx_buf,
@@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static int spi_check_rx_ranges(struct spi_device *spi,
 		/* if still not found then something has modified too much */
 		/* we could list the "closest" transfer here... */
 		dev_err(&spi->dev,
-			"loopback strangeness - rx changed outside of allowed range at: %pK\n",
+			"loopback strangeness - rx changed outside of allowed range at: %p\n",
 			addr);
 		/* do not return, only set ret,
 		 * so that we list all addresses
@@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ static int spi_test_translate(struct spi_device *spi,
 	}
 
 	dev_err(&spi->dev,
-		"PointerRange [%pK:%pK[ not in range [%pK:%pK[ or [%pK:%pK[\n",
+		"PointerRange [%p:%p[ not in range [%p:%p[ or [%p:%p[\n",
 		*ptr, *ptr + len,
 		RX(0), RX(SPI_TEST_MAX_SIZE),
 		TX(0), TX(SPI_TEST_MAX_SIZE));

---
base-commit: 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585
change-id: 20250811-restricted-pointers-spi-393d0b85c76b

Best regards,
-- 
Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>

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