selftests/bpf: Test rhtab kptr cancellation semanticsgrafted

Resizable hash-map updates and deletions must not perform full special-field
destruction in their caller context. In particular, a referenced kptr must
remain attached to the allocation until the memory allocator destructor can
release it safely.

Add separate coverage for both affected paths. The update test stores a task
kptr, replaces the ordinary value bytes with BPF_EXIST, and verifies that the
kptr survived. The delete test removes an element and exchanges its kptr
through the still-valid map-value pointer before the allocation is reclaimed.

Both cases observe a NULL kptr when rhtab uses bpf_obj_free_fields(). They
recover and release the reference after rhtab switches to cancellation
semantics.

Signed-off-by: Nuoqi Gui <gnq25@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn>
[ kkd: Split update and delete coverage and rewrote the commit log ]
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260904104203.345917-5-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/rust/helpers/build_assert.c b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6a54b2680
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rust/helpers/build_assert.c
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+#include <linux/build_bug.h>
+
+/*
+ * `bindgen` binds the C `size_t` type as the Rust `usize` type, so we can
+ * use it in contexts where Rust expects a `usize` like slice (array) indices.
+ * `usize` is defined to be the same as C's `uintptr_t` type (can hold any
+ * pointer) but not necessarily the same as `size_t` (can hold the size of any
+ * single object). Most modern platforms use the same concrete integer type for
+ * both of them, but in case we find ourselves on a platform where
+ * that's not true, fail early instead of risking ABI or
+ * integer-overflow issues.
+ *
+ * If your platform fails this assertion, it means that you are in
+ * danger of integer-overflow bugs (even if you attempt to add
+ * `--no-size_t-is-usize`). It may be easiest to change the kernel ABI on
+ * your platform such that `size_t` matches `uintptr_t` (i.e., to increase
+ * `size_t`, because `uintptr_t` has to be at least as big as `size_t`).
+ */
+static_assert(
+	sizeof(size_t) == sizeof(uintptr_t) &&
+	__alignof__(size_t) == __alignof__(uintptr_t),
+	"Rust code expects C `size_t` to match Rust `usize`"
+);