objtool: Validate disassembler headers in libopcodes probegrafted

commit 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries")
tested for libopcodes availability by linking a test snippet with a forward
declaration of disassemble_init_for_target().

However, testing symbol linkage with an extern declaration only verifies
the presence of the library (.so/.a) and bypasses checking for development
headers (binutils-dev). On systems where libopcodes is present without
development headers installed, the probe succeeds, enabling BUILD_DISAS.
Subsequent compilation of objtool then fails:

  fatal error: 'bfd.h' file not found
    113 | #include <bfd.h>

Additionally, the probe invokes $(HOSTCC) without $(HOSTCFLAGS), ignoring
any sysroot or include flags specified for the host compiler.

Fix this by including <bfd.h> and <dis-asm.h> directly in the test snippet,
passing $(HOSTCFLAGS) so host compiler options are respected, and defining
PACKAGE="objtool" to satisfy the configuration check in <bfd.h>.

Fixes: 3f2de814c059 ("objtool: Fix libopcodes linking with static libraries")
Fixes: 436326bc525d ("objtool: fix build failure due to missing libopcodes check")
Reported-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Assisted-by: Antigravity:Gemini-Next
Signed-off-by: Ulises Mendez Martinez <umendez@google.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260904150710.2997558-1-umendez@google.com
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b87ab34de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/contribution-maturity-model.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+========================================
+Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model
+========================================
+
+
+Background
+==========
+
+As a part of the 2021 Linux Kernel Maintainers’ Summit, there was a
+`discussion <https://lwn.net/Articles/870581/>`_ about the challenges in
+recruiting kernel maintainers as well as maintainer succession.  Some of
+the conclusions from that discussion included that companies which are a
+part of the Linux Kernel community need to allow engineers to be
+maintainers as part of their job, so they can grow into becoming
+respected leaders and eventually, kernel maintainers.  To support a
+strong talent pipeline, developers should be allowed and encouraged to
+take on upstream contributions such as reviewing other people’s patches,
+refactoring kernel infrastructure, and writing documentation.
+
+To that end, the Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board (TAB)
+proposes this Linux Kernel Contribution Maturity Model. These common
+expectations for upstream community engagement aim to increase the
+influence of individual developers, increase the collaboration of
+organizations, and improve the overall health of the Linux Kernel
+ecosystem.
+
+The TAB urges organizations to continuously evaluate their Open Source
+maturity model and commit to improvements to align with this model.  To
+be effective, this evaluation should incorporate feedback from across
+the organization, including management and developers at all seniority
+levels.  In the spirit of Open Source, we encourage organizations to
+publish their evaluations and plans to improve their engagement with the
+upstream community.
+
+Level 0
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are not allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+  kernel.
+
+
+Level 1
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are allowed to contribute patches to the Linux
+  kernel, either as part of their job responsibilities or on their own
+  time.
+
+Level 2
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to contribute to the Linux Kernel as
+  part of their job responsibilities.
+* Software Engineers will be supported to attend Linux-related
+  conferences as a part of their job.
+* A Software Engineer’s upstream code contributions will be considered
+  in promotion and performance reviews.
+
+Level 3
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are expected to review patches (including patches
+  authored by engineers from other companies) as part of their job
+  responsibilities
+* Contributing presentations or papers to Linux-related or academic
+  conferences (such those organized by the Linux Foundation, Usenix,
+  ACM, etc.), are considered part of an engineer’s work.
+* A Software Engineer’s community contributions will be considered in
+  promotion and performance reviews.
+* Organizations will regularly report metrics of their open source
+  contributions and track these metrics over time.  These metrics may be
+  published only internally within the organization, or at the
+  organization’s discretion, some or all may be published externally.
+  Metrics that are strongly suggested include:
+
+  * The number of upstream kernel contributions by team or organization
+    (e.g., all people reporting up to a manager, director, or VP).
+  * The percentage of kernel developers who have made upstream
+    contributions relative to the total kernel developers in the
+    organization.
+  * The time interval between kernels used in the organization’s servers
+    and/or products, and the publication date of the upstream kernel
+    upon which the internal kernel is based.
+  * The number of out-of-tree commits present in internal kernels.
+
+Level 4
+=======
+
+* Software Engineers are encouraged to spend a portion of their work
+  time focused on Upstream Work, which is defined as reviewing patches,
+  serving on program committees, improving core project infrastructure
+  such as writing or maintaining tests, upstream tech debt reduction,
+  writing documentation, etc.
+* Software Engineers are supported in helping to organize Linux-related
+  conferences.
+* Organizations will consider community member feedback in official
+  performance reviews.
+
+Level 5
+=======
+
+* Upstream kernel development is considered a formal job position, with
+  at least a third of the engineer’s time spent doing Upstream Work.
+* Organizations will actively seek out community member feedback as a
+  factor in official performance reviews.
+* Organizations will regularly report internally on the ratio of
+  Upstream Work to work focused on directly pursuing business goals.