lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:56:59 -0800
From:	Tim Bird <>
To:	Shuah Khan <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
CC:	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: WIP alternative - was Re: [PATCH v3 14/20] selftests/size: add
 install target to enable test install

On 01/05/2015 01:28 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 12/31/2014 07:31 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
>> The install phase is desperately needed for usage of kselftest in
>> cross-target situations (applicable to almost all embedded).  So this
>> is great stuff.
> Thanks.
>> I worked a bit on isolating the install stuff to a makefile include file.
>> This allows simplifying some of the sub-level Makefiles a bit, and allowing
>> control of some of the install and run logic in less places.
>> This is still a work in progress, but before I got too far along, I wanted
>> to post it for people to provide feedback.  A couple of problems cropped
>> up that are worth discussing, IMHO.
>> 1) I think it should be a requirement that each test has a single
>> "main" program to execute to run the tests.  If multiple tests are supported
>> or more flexibility is desired for additional arguments, or that sort of
>> thing, then that's fine, but the automated script builder should be able
>> to run just a single program or script to have things work.  This also
>> makes things more consistent.  In the case of the firmware test, I created
>> a single script to do this, instead of having two separate
>> blocks in the script.
> It is a good goal for individual tests to use a main program to run
> tests, even though, I would not make it a requirement. I would like to
> leave that decision up to the individual test writer.
OK.  It helps to have a single line when trying to isolate
RUN_TEST creation into the include file, but there may be other
ways to accomplish this.

>> 2) I've added a CROSS_INSTALL variable, which can call an arbitrary program
>> to place files on the target system (rather than just calling 'install').
>> In my case, I'd use my own 'ttc cp' command, which I can extend as necessary
>> to put things on a remote machine.  This works for a single directory,
>> but things get dicier with sub-directory trees full of files (like
>> the ftrace test uses.)
>> If additional items need to be installed to the target, then maybe a setup
>> program should be used, rather than just copying files.
>> 3) Some of the scripts were using /bin/bash to execute them, rather
>> than rely on the interpreter line in the script itself (and having
>> the script have executable privileges).  Is there a reason for this?
>> I modified a few scripts to be executable, and got rid of the
>> explicit execution with /bin/bash.
> Probably no reason other than the choice made by the test writer.
> It could be cleaned up and made consistent, however, I would see
> this as a separate enhancement type work that could be done on its
> own and not include it in the install work.

OK - this was also something that simplified the creation
of the RUN_TEST variable in the isolated include file.
Also, having the interpreter explicit in the invocation line
in the Makefile as well as in the script itself is a bit redundant.
>> The following is just a start...  Let me know if this direction looks
>> OK, and I'll finish this up.  The main item to look at is
>> kselftest.include file.  Note that these patches are based on Shuah's
>> series - but if you want to use these ideas I can rebase them onto
>> mainline, and break them out per test sub-level like Shuah did.
> One of the reasons I picked install target approach is to enable the
> feature by extending the existing run_tests support. This way we will
> have the feature available quickly. Once that is supported, we can work
> on evolving to a generic approach to use the include file approach, as
> the changes you are proposing are based on the the series I sent out,
> and makes improvements to it.
> kselftest.include file approach could work for several tests and tests
> that can't use the generic could add their own install support.
> I propose evolving to a generic kselftest.include as the second step in
> evolving the install feature. Can I count on you do the work and update
> the tests to use kselftest.include, CROSS_INSTALL variable support?

Yes.  I'd be happy to evolve it through phases to support the include
file and cross-target install feature.

Is there anything I can help with in the mean time?  Some of the tests
require a directory tree of files rather than just a few top-level files
(e.g. ftrace).

I was thinking about doing some work to tar-ify the needed directories of
data files during build, and untar it in the execution area during the
install step.  Do you want me to propose something there?
 -- Tim

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists