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, 99 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/net/sched/em_cmp.c b/net/sched/em_cmp.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..48c1bce74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/net/sched/em_cmp.c
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+/*
+ * net/sched/em_cmp.c	Simple packet data comparison ematch
+ *
+ * Authors:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
+ */
+
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/skbuff.h>
+#include <linux/tc_ematch/tc_em_cmp.h>
+#include <linux/unaligned.h>
+#include <net/pkt_cls.h>
+
+static inline int cmp_needs_transformation(struct tcf_em_cmp *cmp)
+{
+	return unlikely(cmp->flags & TCF_EM_CMP_TRANS);
+}
+
+static int em_cmp_match(struct sk_buff *skb, struct tcf_ematch *em,
+			struct tcf_pkt_info *info)
+{
+	struct tcf_em_cmp *cmp = (struct tcf_em_cmp *) em->data;
+	unsigned char *ptr = tcf_get_base_ptr(skb, cmp->layer);
+	u32 val = 0;
+
+	if (!ptr)
+		return 0;
+	ptr += cmp->off;
+	if (!tcf_valid_offset(skb, ptr, cmp->align))
+		return 0;
+
+	switch (cmp->align) {
+	case TCF_EM_ALIGN_U8:
+		val = *ptr;
+		break;
+
+	case TCF_EM_ALIGN_U16:
+		val = get_unaligned_be16(ptr);
+
+		if (cmp_needs_transformation(cmp))
+			val = be16_to_cpu(val);
+		break;
+
+	case TCF_EM_ALIGN_U32:
+		/* Worth checking boundaries? The branching seems
+		 * to get worse. Visit again.
+		 */
+		val = get_unaligned_be32(ptr);
+
+		if (cmp_needs_transformation(cmp))
+			val = be32_to_cpu(val);
+		break;
+
+	default:
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	if (cmp->mask)
+		val &= cmp->mask;
+
+	switch (cmp->opnd) {
+	case TCF_EM_OPND_EQ:
+		return val == cmp->val;
+	case TCF_EM_OPND_LT:
+		return val < cmp->val;
+	case TCF_EM_OPND_GT:
+		return val > cmp->val;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static struct tcf_ematch_ops em_cmp_ops = {
+	.kind	  = TCF_EM_CMP,
+	.datalen  = sizeof(struct tcf_em_cmp),
+	.match	  = em_cmp_match,
+	.owner	  = THIS_MODULE,
+	.link	  = LIST_HEAD_INIT(em_cmp_ops.link)
+};
+
+static int __init init_em_cmp(void)
+{
+	return tcf_em_register(&em_cmp_ops);
+}
+
+static void __exit exit_em_cmp(void)
+{
+	tcf_em_unregister(&em_cmp_ops);
+}
+
+MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ematch classifier for basic data types(8/16/32 bit) against skb data");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+
+module_init(init_em_cmp);
+module_exit(exit_em_cmp);
+
+MODULE_ALIAS_TCF_EMATCH(TCF_EM_CMP);