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 <[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?
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
