Re: [PATCH] perf symbols: Don't let a module's last symbol overlap the next module

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] perf: missing explicit <string.h> inclusion for strcmp
--

commit 4f103cd2e58d587c3ce270538dfd9a32b1e56fa8
Author: Alireza Haghdoost <haghdoost@uber.com>

perf symbols: Don't let a module's last symbol overlap the next module

symbols__fixup_end() extends a zero-size symbol that is the last one in
the kernel or in a module to the end of the next page. This patch clamps
the end to the next symbol's start so that lookups do not return the
wrong symbol. It also adds a test case to the Symbols suite to cover
these boundary cases.

> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/symbols.c b/tools/perf/tests/symbols.c
> index c09e04f36035a..b644d95c6be9a 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/tests/symbols.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/symbols.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
>  #include <linux/string.h>
>  #include <sys/mman.h>
> +#include <inttypes.h>
>  #include <limits.h>
>  #include "debug.h"
>  #include "dso.h"

[ ... ]

> +static int check_symbol(struct dso *dso, u64 addr, const char *name, u64 end)
> +{
> +	struct symbol *sym = dso__find_symbol_nocache(dso, addr);
> +
> +	if (!sym || strcmp(sym->name, name)) {

[Severity: Low]
Omitting the exact POSIX header <string.h> for strcmp() can cause musl libc
builds to fail, as musl enforces strict namespace separation without the
implicit inclusions common in glibc.

Does this new call to strcmp() in check_symbol() require an explicit include of
<string.h> at the top of tools/perf/tests/symbols.c?

> +		pr_debug("%#" PRIx64 ": expected %s, got %s\n", addr, name,
> +			 sym ? sym->name : "no symbol");
> +		return TEST_FAIL;
> +	}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928-haghdoost-perf-symbols-fixup-module-end-v1-1-0a70d1edd401@uber.com?part=1