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, 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`"
+);