linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: allow shell return code of 126

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHse=S-v3T1nA8HpZOzsOqD5WZr8QTpcEy_kV=yk8uVJBOTGnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Jan 2015 08:23:25 +0000
From:	David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
To:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linux/m68k" <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/exec: allow shell return code of 126

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/2015 04:19 AM, David Drysdale wrote:
>> When the shell fails to invoke a script because its path name
>> is too long (ENAMETOOLONG), most shells return 127 to indicate
>> command not found.  However, some systems report 126 (which POSIX
>> suggests should indicate a non-executable file) for this case,
>> so allow that too.
>>
>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
>> index d273624c93a6..0d940c6e26bd 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/execveat.c
>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static int _check_execveat_fail(int fd, const char *path, int flags,
>>  }
>>
>>  static int check_execveat_invoked_rc(int fd, const char *path, int flags,
>> -                                  int expected_rc)
>> +                                  int expected_rc, int expected_rc2)
>
> This logic doesn't scale well if there other expected return
> values to account for. Please think about a re-write to handle
> multiple expected return codes.

I don't think it needs to scale -- even having a second possible return
code was a bit of a surprise.

>>  {
>>       int status;
>>       int rc;
>> @@ -99,9 +99,19 @@ static int check_execveat_invoked_rc(int fd, const char *path, int flags,
>>               return 1;
>>       }
>>       if (WEXITSTATUS(status) != expected_rc) {
>> -             printf("[FAIL] (child %d exited with %d not %d)\n",
>> -                     child, WEXITSTATUS(status), expected_rc);
>> -             return 1;
>> +             if (expected_rc != expected_rc2) {
>
> Please collapse expected_rc and expected_rc2 checks. You can rephrase
> the error message to work for both cases.

OK, will do.

> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
> --
> Shuah Khan
> Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
> Open Source Innovation Group
> Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
> shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/