On September 7, 2022 5:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
><rsbecker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> I am finding an issue with t1800.16 failing as a result of a text
compare:
>>
>> -fatal: cannot run bad-hooks/test-hook: ...
>> +fatal: cannot exec 'bad-hooks/test-hook': Permission denied
>>
>> I don't think this is actually a failure condition but the message
>> text is platform and shell specific.
>
>Isn't this coming from piece of code in start_command()?
>
> /*
> * Attempt to exec using the command and arguments starting
at
> * argv.argv[1]. argv.argv[0] contains SHELL_PATH which
will
> * be used in the event exec failed with ENOEXEC at which
point
> * we will try to interpret the command using 'sh'.
> */
> execve(argv.v[1], (char *const *) argv.v + 1,
> (char *const *) childenv);
> if (errno == ENOEXEC)
> execve(argv.v[0], (char *const *) argv.v,
> (char *const *) childenv);
>
> if (errno == ENOENT) {
> if (cmd->silent_exec_failure)
> child_die(CHILD_ERR_SILENT);
> child_die(CHILD_ERR_ENOENT);
> } else {
> child_die(CHILD_ERR_ERRNO);
> }
>
>The test apparently expects CHILD_ERR_NOENT, which comes from
>child_err_spew()
>
> case CHILD_ERR_ENOENT:
> error_errno("cannot run %s", cmd->args.v[0]);
> break;
> case CHILD_ERR_SILENT:
> break;
> case CHILD_ERR_ERRNO:
> error_errno("cannot exec '%s'", cmd->args.v[0]);
> break;
> }
>
>but somehow your system fails the execve() with something other than
ENOENT.
The file exists but could not be executed. EPERM was returned. The reason is
that test-hooks exists and contains:
#!/bad/path/no/spaces
which does not exist. This (correctly IMO) translates to EPERM not ENOENT
because the test-hooks file exists but cannot be executed due to the
underlying failure. The underlying ENOENT is hidden.
