ARM: 9480/1: entry: expand comment in __switch_tografted

As per discussion between the developers in the mail thread
linked, expand the comment in __switch_to so that readers
of the code understand what is going on.

Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>

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`"
+);