From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM, ARM64, LONGARCH, XTENSA: Delay HW BP notification to task_work()
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 09:18:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-167891@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261012090431.TF3iVDsk@linutronix.de>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] perf: ODR violation and ABI mismatch in struct perf_event due to unexported macro
--
commit fc15e8519a12261f55ee613e302041c25e4218d0
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
ARM, ARM64, LONGARCH, XTENSA: Delay HW BP notification to task_work()
This commit delays the hardware event delivery callback to task_work() to
fix sleeping while atomic warnings on PREEMPT_RT. It implements a generic
perf callback perf_hwbp_notify() and adds ARCH_NEED_PERF_HW_NOTIFY to
supported architectures.
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aho0eqjMESuHxECr@redhat.com/
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -215,6 +215,10 @@ struct hw_perf_event {
>
> /* Last sync'ed generation of filters */
> unsigned long addr_filters_gen;
> +#ifdef ARCH_NEED_PERF_HW_NOTIFY
> + struct callback_head arch_hw_notif;
> + int arch_hw_notif_busy;
> +#endif
[Severity: Critical]
Does this cause an ABI mismatch and One Definition Rule violation across
the kernel?
The ARCH_NEED_PERF_HW_NOTIFY macro is defined in architecture-specific
headers like arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h, but it is used here
in the generic include/linux/perf_event.h header.
Because linux/perf_event.h does not universally include asm/hw_breakpoint.h,
translation units that include linux/perf_event.h without previously
including the architecture hardware breakpoint header will evaluate
struct hw_perf_event without these fields. Since struct hw_perf_event
is embedded in struct perf_event, this alters the size and member offsets
of struct perf_event across different subsystems.
Can this lead to memory corruption when perf_event objects are passed
between translation units with mismatched struct definitions? Should these
conditional fields be driven by a globally visible Kconfig symbol instead?
>
> /*
> * hw_perf_event::state flags; used to track the PERF_EF_* state.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261012090431.TF3iVDsk@linutronix.de?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-12 9:04 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-10-12 9:18 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-12 9:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-10-12 10:15 ` Huacai Chen
2026-10-12 10:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=sashiko-outbox-167891@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®