Skip to contentSkip to conversation

selftests: use $SHELL to exec selftests

PATCH In review Luis R. Rodriguez 2 participants 3 messages Aug 3, 2017 Kselftest

lore
Share & tools
lore

Luis R. Rodriguez

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 selftests: use $SHELL to exec selftests

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(-)
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +1 -1
index 959273c3a52e..2d6abb8037be 100644
@@ -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
Signature · 1 line
2.11.0
#1 lore raw
Quoted 22 lines · Luis R. Rodriguez

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(-)
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +0 -0
index 959273c3a52e..2d6abb8037be 100644

tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk all: $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_GEN_FILES) · line 19

Quoted 7 lines
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +1 -1
@@ -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

Signature · 2 lines
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
author
#2 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 17 lines · Luis R. Rodriguez

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(-)
Quoted 14 lines

tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk all: $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_GEN_FILES) · line 19

Quoted 12 lines
tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +1 -1
index 959273c3a52e..2d6abb8037be 100644
@@ -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:

tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk +6 -1
index 959273c3a52e..e963ee375d77 100644
@@ -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