On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> > --- > > 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? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
