selftests/bpf: Check that JMP32 pointer vs zero jumps are not predictedgrafted

Add jmp32_ptr_vs_zero_jne: the fall-through of the 32-bit compare, which
the verifier used to skip, contains an out of bounds map value access,
hence w/o the previous patch the program is accepted. See previous patch
for detailed description.

Reported-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Suggested-by: Nicholas Carlini <npc@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260904083325.2083493-6-eddyz87@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>

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`"
+);