fix(cws): collect mount fields from make_visible to support kernels >= 6.18

[YoannGh]

What does this PR do?

Collects the fields of a mount syscall event from make_visible instead of attach_recursive_mnt.

Motivation

Kernel 6.18 changed how attach_recursive_mnt receives its destination, and compilers usually emit it as an ISRA optimized function, so the hook either reads the wrong arguments or is not called at all. It is the only hook covering plain mounts, so CWS stops reporting them entirely: no mount event, no mount resolution, and paths on those mounts can no longer be resolved from events.

make_visible is reached on the same code path, takes a single argument and exposes the parent mount and the mountpoint through the new mount itself. It exists since 6.17, which covers every kernel affected by the change, and older kernels keep using the existing hook.

Describe how you validated your changes

Existing functional tests (TestMount* and TestUmount tests) running on Ubuntu 26.04 that this PR fixes.

Additional Notes

[dd-octo-sts]

Files inventory check summary

File checks results against ancestor c71b5a68:

Results for datadog-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.81.baa1d7a.pipeline.130152626-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

Results for datadog-iot-agent_7.84.0~devel.git.81.baa1d7a.pipeline.130152626-1_amd64.deb:

No change detected

[dd-octo-sts]

Static quality checks

✅ Please find below the results from static quality gates
Comparison made with ancestor d1520bc
📊 Static Quality Gates Dashboard
🔗 SQG Job
SOME SIZE DELTAS ARE N/A (ANCESTOR METRICS NOT YET AVAILABLE). RETRY JOB

Successful checks

Info

	Quality gate	Change	Size (prev → curr → max)
✅	agent_deb_amd64	N/A	N/A → 759.544 → 764.430
✅	agent_deb_amd64_fips	N/A	N/A → 712.897 → 715.680
✅	agent_heroku_amd64	N/A	N/A → 312.272 → 318.990
✅	agent_msi	N/A	N/A → 643.218 → 660.900
✅	agent_rpm_amd64	N/A	N/A → 759.527 → 764.400
✅	agent_rpm_amd64_fips	N/A	N/A → 712.881 → 715.680
✅	agent_rpm_arm64	N/A	N/A → 735.506 → 736.490
✅	agent_rpm_arm64_fips	N/A	N/A → 692.115 → 693.640
✅	agent_suse_amd64	N/A	N/A → 759.527 → 764.400
✅	agent_suse_amd64_fips	N/A	N/A → 712.881 → 715.680
✅	agent_suse_arm64	N/A	N/A → 735.506 → 736.490
✅	agent_suse_arm64_fips	N/A	N/A → 692.115 → 693.640
✅	docker_agent_amd64	N/A	N/A → 818.167 → 819.970
✅	docker_agent_arm64	N/A	N/A → 819.181 → 820.690
✅	docker_agent_jmx_amd64	N/A	N/A → 1009.065 → 1010.730
✅	docker_agent_jmx_arm64	N/A	N/A → 998.731 → 1000.370
✅	docker_cluster_agent_amd64	N/A	N/A → 210.346 → 211.300
✅	docker_cluster_agent_arm64	N/A	N/A → 223.393 → 223.810
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_amd64	N/A	N/A → 7.439 → 7.480
✅	docker_cws_instrumentation_arm64	N/A	N/A → 6.877 → 7.110
✅	docker_dogstatsd_amd64	N/A	N/A → 39.474 → 39.960
✅	docker_dogstatsd_arm64	N/A	N/A → 37.560 → 38.270
✅	docker_host_profiler_amd64	N/A	N/A → 305.804 → 317.690
✅	docker_host_profiler_arm64	N/A	N/A → 317.121 → 328.970
✅	dogstatsd_deb_amd64	N/A	N/A → 30.216 → 31.200
✅	dogstatsd_deb_arm64	N/A	N/A → 28.239 → 29.580
✅	dogstatsd_rpm_amd64	N/A	N/A → 30.216 → 31.200
✅	dogstatsd_suse_amd64	N/A	N/A → 30.216 → 31.200
✅	iot_agent_deb_amd64	N/A	N/A → 46.420 → 46.440
✅	iot_agent_deb_arm64	N/A	N/A → 43.095 → 43.770
✅	iot_agent_deb_armhf	N/A	N/A → 43.875 → 44.020
✅	iot_agent_rpm_amd64	N/A	N/A → 46.420 → 46.440
✅	iot_agent_suse_amd64	N/A	N/A → 46.419 → 46.440

[cit-pr-commenter-54b7da]

Regression Detector

Regression Detector Results

Metrics dashboard
Target profiles
Run ID: f9ba954a-cef4-4135-9256-3444a4c9235f

Baseline: c6cce5f
Comparison: eb0f7c4
Diff

Optimization Goals: ✅ No significant changes detected

Fine details of change detection per experiment

perf	experiment	goal	Δ mean %	Δ mean % CI	trials	links
➖	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory utilization	+0.73	[+0.48, +0.98]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_logs	% cpu utilization	+0.34	[-0.50, +1.17]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory utilization	+0.15	[+0.03, +0.27]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory utilization	-0.01	[-0.08, +0.07]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory utilization	-0.13	[-0.27, +0.02]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory utilization	-0.14	[-0.18, -0.09]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_security_idle	memory utilization	-0.20	[-0.30, -0.09]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard
➖	quality_gate_idle	memory utilization	-0.28	[-0.40, -0.16]	1	Logs bounds checks dashboard

Bounds Checks: ❌ Failed

perf	experiment	bounds_check_name	replicates_passed	observed_value	links
✅	quality_gate_idle	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_idle	memory_usage	0/10	172.45MiB > 154MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle	total_bytes_received	10/10	736.65KiB ≤ 819.20KiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	intake_connections	10/10	4 = 4	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	memory_usage	10/10	511.88MiB ≤ 512MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_idle_all_features	total_bytes_received	10/10	1.12MiB ≤ 1.25MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	intake_connections	10/10	17 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
❌	quality_gate_logs	memory_usage	1/10	207.13MiB > 195MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	263.85MiB ≤ 292MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	cpu_usage	10/10	414.28 ≤ 2000	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	intake_connections	10/10	18 ≤ 40	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	memory_usage	10/10	409.53MiB ≤ 430MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	missed_bytes	10/10	0B = 0B	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_metrics_logs	total_bytes_received	10/10	0.94GiB ≤ 1.04GiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_private_action_runner	memory_usage	10/10	71.68MiB ≤ 75MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	cpu_usage	10/10	27.50 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_idle	memory_usage	10/10	325.49MiB ≤ 330MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	57.59 ≤ 200	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	303.53MiB ≤ 310MiB	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	cpu_usage	10/10	20.27 ≤ 100	bounds checks dashboard
✅	quality_gate_security_no_fs_load	memory_usage	10/10	309.28MiB ≤ 320MiB	bounds checks dashboard

Explanation

Confidence level: 90.00%
Effect size tolerance: |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%

Performance changes are noted in the perf column of each table:

• ✅ = significantly better comparison variant performance
• ❌ = significantly worse comparison variant performance
• ➖ = no significant change in performance

A regression test is an A/B test of target performance in a repeatable rig, where "performance" is measured as "comparison variant minus baseline variant" for an optimization goal (e.g., ingress throughput). Due to intrinsic variability in measuring that goal, we can only estimate its mean value for each experiment; we report uncertainty in that value as a 90.00% confidence interval denoted "Δ mean % CI".

For each experiment, we decide whether a change in performance is a "regression" -- a change worth investigating further -- if all of the following criteria are true:

1. Its estimated |Δ mean %| ≥ 5.00%, indicating the change is big enough to merit a closer look.

2. Its 90.00% confidence interval "Δ mean % CI" does not contain zero, indicating that if our statistical model is accurate, there is at least a 90.00% chance there is a difference in performance between baseline and comparison variants.

3. Its configuration does not mark it "erratic".

Replicate Execution Details

We run multiple replicates for each experiment/variant. However, we allow replicates to be automatically retried if there are any failures, up to 8 times, at which point the replicate is marked dead and we are unable to run analysis for the entire experiment. We call each of these attempts at running replicates a replicate execution. This section lists all replicate executions that failed due to the target crashing or being oom killed.

Note: In the below tables we bucket failures by experiment, variant, and failure type. For each of these buckets we list out the replicate indexes that failed with an annotation signifying how many times said replicate failed with the given failure mode. In the below example the baseline variant of the experiment named experiment_with_failures had two replicates that failed by oom kills. Replicate 0, which failed 8 executions, and replicate 1 which failed 6 executions, all with the same failure mode.

Experiment	Variant	Replicates	Failure	Logs	Debug Dashboard
experiment_with_failures	baseline	0 (x8) 1 (x6)	Oom killed		Debug Dashboard

The debug dashboard links will take you to a debugging dashboard specifically designed to investigate replicate execution failures.

❌ Retried Profiling Replicate Execution Failures (ddprof)

Note: Profiling replicas may still be executing. See the debug dashboard for up to date status.

Experiment	Variant	Replicates	Failure	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features	baseline	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_idle_all_features	comparison	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_logs	comparison	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs	baseline	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_metrics_logs	comparison	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle	baseline	10	Crashed (exit code: 134)	Debug Dashboard
quality_gate_security_idle	comparison	10	Oom killed	Debug Dashboard

CI Pass/Fail Decision

❌ Failed. Some Quality Gates were violated.

• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_mean_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_no_fs_load, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_security_idle, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle, bounds check memory_usage: 0/10 replicas passed. Failed 10 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
• quality_gate_private_action_runner, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 1/10 replicas passed. Failed 9 which is > 0. Gate FAILED.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check cpu_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check missed_bytes: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_metrics_logs, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check intake_connections: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check total_bytes_received: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.
• quality_gate_idle_all_features, bounds check memory_usage: 10/10 replicas passed. Gate passed.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a0f1acf7fa

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Capture the first visible mount despite propagation

When a mount is attached beneath a shared mount, hook_propagate_mnt runs before commit_tree and stores a propagated copy in syscall->mount.newmnt (lines 524-535). The first make_visible call is then for the syscall's original mount, so this inequality rejects exactly the mount the comment says to capture; a later call can instead select the cached propagated copy. The exit hook consequently reports/resolves the peer copy while the original mount remains unknown to CWS. Track whether make_visible itself has captured its first mount rather than treating any pre-populated newmnt as authoritative.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[YoannGh]

Only two hooks currently write to the syscall->mount.newmnt field for EVENT_MOUNT: attach_recursive_mnt and propagate_mnt. Both of these retrieve the original mount created by the mount syscall (and not a copy of some propagated mountpoint), so the comment is wrong here

[YoannGh]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-11 16:04:05 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-08-11 16:04:10 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in main is approximately 2h (p90).

---

2026-08-11 16:29:15 UTC ⚠️ MergeQueue: This merge request was unqueued

yoann.ghigoff@datadoghq.com unqueued this merge request

[YoannGh]

/remove

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-11 16:29:10 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /remove

---

2026-08-11 16:29:14 UTC ℹ️ Devflow: /remove