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 <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
