From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751926AbdHCUXf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:23:35 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42729 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656AbdHCUXe (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:23:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 22:23:31 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Kees Cook Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Shuah Khan , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Andrew Morton , Petr Mladek , Dan Carpenter , Colin King , dcb314@hotmail.com, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: use $SHELL to exec selftests Message-ID: <20170803202331.GB27873@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170803165900.4897-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:27:33AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > Executing selftests is fragile as if someone forgot to set a secript > > as executable the test will fail. Setting scripts as executable is > > desirable to enable folks to execute tests as independent units, > > however, we can avoid the fragile errors of forgetting to set the > > script as executable by just invoking the $SHELL for running each > > script. > > > > Suggsted-by: Andrew Morton > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > > --- > > > > Shuah, while the last two patches could be queued in for 4.13-final, > > this one I think is more appropriate for v4.14-rc1 only. > > > > tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > > index 959273c3a52e..2d6abb8037be 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk > > @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ all: $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_GEN_FILES) > > define RUN_TESTS > > @for TEST in $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS); do \ > > BASENAME_TEST=`basename $$TEST`; \ > > - cd `dirname $$TEST`; (./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\ > > + cd `dirname $$TEST`; ($$SHELL ./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\ > > done; > > endef > > Is BASENAME_TEST always a script? Can't it be a built binary too? True, this should only be attempted then if the file is *not* a shell script. Furthermore any interpreter could be used, so using a shell would not work for all anyway. So this would be wrong too: diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk index 959273c3a52e..e963ee375d77 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk @@ -14,7 +14,12 @@ all: $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_GEN_FILES) define RUN_TESTS @for TEST in $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS); do \ BASENAME_TEST=`basename $$TEST`; \ - cd `dirname $$TEST`; (./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\ + USE_SHELL=""; \ + if [ ! -x $$BASENAME_TEST ]; then \ + USE_SHELL="$$SHELL"; \ + echo "Warning: file $$BASENAME_TEST is not executable, correct this. Assuming we can run it as a shell script";\ + fi; \ + cd `dirname $$TEST`; ($$USE_SHELL ./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\ done; endef Just distinguishing between an ELF binary and an interpreted script seems rather hacky here too -- even if say we use head -c 2 and grep for "#!" -- this all just seems convoluted for a Makefile. As such for now I think its best we just inform the user that the reason why a test failed was the lack of the executable bit. Will send patch follow up as v2. Luis