Hi Kees and Andrew, On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 10:48:51AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 05:42:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 02:25:43PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote: > > > > kasprintf_strarray() returns an array of N strings and kfree_strarray() > > > > also frees N entries. However, kasprintf_strarray() currently allocates > > > > N+1 char pointers. Allocate exactly N pointers instead of N+1. > > > > > > > > Also update the kernel-doc for @n. > > > > > > Have you checked all current users that they do not rely on the NULL > > > terminated > > > array? > > > > Yes, I've checked all call sites, and none of them rely on the NULL > > terminator. Specifically, I checked: > > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-mockup.c > > > > which uses PROPERTY_ENTRY_STRING_ARRAY_LEN(), and > > > > drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-bcm4908.c > > drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel-platform.c > > drivers/pinctrl/meson/pinctrl-amlogic-a4.c > > drivers/pinctrl/mvebu/pinctrl-armada-37xx.c > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c > > > > all of which use the size N to iterate over the returned array. > > Thanks for confirming. > > > Also, kfree_strarray() explicitly takes the number of entries N, > > indicating that callers are expected to keep track of it. > > Still we might have an API that requires a NULL terminated arrays (when it > doesn't take size), which a caller wants to use. > > > > Note, that was done on purpose that once allocated it can allow user > > > to drop the track of the number of strings and rely on NULL terminator. > > > I.o.w. the number of strings may be just a local variable somewhere > > > where kasprintf_strarray() is called. > > > > > > I tend to NAK this change, rather you can update kernel-doc to explain > > > why it's done this way (see above). > > Given pros and cons, and what David said I'm still not sure that this is > going to be a beneficial patch. I leave it Kees and Andrew to decide.
What's your take on this and the __counted_by_ptr() annotation from patch 2/2? Thanks, Thorsten
