kbuild: rust: keep Rust objects out of Clang LTO with inline helpersgrafted

Under `CONFIG_LTO_CLANG` + `CONFIG_RUST_INLINE_HELPERS`, one may hit
`objtool` errors such as:

    vmlinux.o: error: objtool: _R..._3Gsp4boot+0xd6a:
    can't find jump dest instruction at .text._R..._3Gsp4boot+0x1dfd

The reason is that in such builds, the Clang invocation that compiles
the combined Rust plus helpers bitcode emits LLVM bitcode (again) --
the final code generation happens in the linker's LTO step, which the
`-mllvm` trap options passed to Clang do not reach.

This, in turn, means that unreachable traps are missing, and the
impossible paths do not merely fallthrough to the next symbol, but past
the end of their own section, since LTO builds place each function in
its own section.

Thus filter `CC_FLAGS_LTO` out of the Clang invocation, so that it always
emits machine code directly, with the traps in place.

Assisted-by: LLM
Cc: Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>
Cc: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Cc: Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 3a2486cc1da5 ("kbuild: rust: provide an option to inline C helpers into Rust")
Acked-by: Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260816133233.197500-2-ojeda@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 170 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tools/perf/util/strbuf.c b/tools/perf/util/strbuf.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a64a37628
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/util/strbuf.c
@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include "cache.h"
+#include "debug.h"
+#include "strbuf.h"
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/string.h>
+#include <linux/zalloc.h>
+#include <errno.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
+
+/*
+ * Used as the default ->buf value, so that people can always assume
+ * buf is non NULL and ->buf is NUL terminated even for a freshly
+ * initialized strbuf.
+ */
+char strbuf_slopbuf[1];
+
+int strbuf_init(struct strbuf *sb, ssize_t hint)
+{
+	sb->alloc = sb->len = 0;
+	sb->buf = strbuf_slopbuf;
+	if (hint)
+		return strbuf_grow(sb, hint);
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void strbuf_release(struct strbuf *sb)
+{
+	if (sb->alloc) {
+		zfree(&sb->buf);
+		strbuf_init(sb, 0);
+	}
+}
+
+char *strbuf_detach(struct strbuf *sb, size_t *sz)
+{
+	char *res = sb->alloc ? sb->buf : NULL;
+	if (sz)
+		*sz = sb->len;
+	strbuf_init(sb, 0);
+	return res;
+}
+
+int strbuf_grow(struct strbuf *sb, size_t extra)
+{
+	char *buf;
+	size_t nr = sb->len + extra + 1;
+
+	if (nr < sb->alloc)
+		return 0;
+
+	if (nr <= sb->len)
+		return -E2BIG;
+
+	if (alloc_nr(sb->alloc) > nr)
+		nr = alloc_nr(sb->alloc);
+
+	/*
+	 * Note that sb->buf == strbuf_slopbuf if sb->alloc == 0, and it is
+	 * a static variable. Thus we have to avoid passing it to realloc.
+	 */
+	buf = realloc(sb->alloc ? sb->buf : NULL, nr * sizeof(*buf));
+	if (!buf)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	sb->buf = buf;
+	sb->alloc = nr;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+int strbuf_addch(struct strbuf *sb, int c)
+{
+	int ret = strbuf_grow(sb, 1);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	sb->buf[sb->len++] = c;
+	sb->buf[sb->len] = '\0';
+	return 0;
+}
+
+int strbuf_add(struct strbuf *sb, const void *data, size_t len)
+{
+	int ret = strbuf_grow(sb, len);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	memcpy(sb->buf + sb->len, data, len);
+	return strbuf_setlen(sb, sb->len + len);
+}
+
+static int strbuf_addv(struct strbuf *sb, const char *fmt, va_list ap)
+{
+	int len, ret;
+	va_list ap_saved;
+
+	if (!strbuf_avail(sb)) {
+		ret = strbuf_grow(sb, 64);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+	}
+
+	va_copy(ap_saved, ap);
+	len = vsnprintf(sb->buf + sb->len, sb->alloc - sb->len, fmt, ap);
+	if (len < 0) {
+		va_end(ap_saved);
+		return len;
+	}
+	if (len > strbuf_avail(sb)) {
+		ret = strbuf_grow(sb, len);
+		if (ret) {
+			va_end(ap_saved);
+			return ret;
+		}
+		len = vsnprintf(sb->buf + sb->len, sb->alloc - sb->len, fmt, ap_saved);
+		if (len > strbuf_avail(sb)) {
+			pr_debug("this should not happen, your vsnprintf is broken");
+			va_end(ap_saved);
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+	}
+	va_end(ap_saved);
+	return strbuf_setlen(sb, sb->len + len);
+}
+
+int strbuf_addf(struct strbuf *sb, const char *fmt, ...)
+{
+	va_list ap;
+	int ret;
+
+	va_start(ap, fmt);
+	ret = strbuf_addv(sb, fmt, ap);
+	va_end(ap);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+ssize_t strbuf_read(struct strbuf *sb, int fd, ssize_t hint)
+{
+	size_t oldlen = sb->len;
+	size_t oldalloc = sb->alloc;
+	int ret;
+
+	ret = strbuf_grow(sb, hint ? hint : 8192);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	for (;;) {
+		ssize_t cnt;
+
+		cnt = read(fd, sb->buf + sb->len, sb->alloc - sb->len - 1);
+		if (cnt < 0) {
+			if (oldalloc == 0)
+				strbuf_release(sb);
+			else
+				strbuf_setlen(sb, oldlen);
+			return cnt;
+		}
+		if (!cnt)
+			break;
+		sb->len += cnt;
+		ret = strbuf_grow(sb, 8192);
+		if (ret)
+			return ret;
+	}
+
+	sb->buf[sb->len] = '\0';
+	return sb->len - oldlen;
+}