linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: use $SHELL to exec selftests

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

Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+X5+bzkorzM1aKjHAFVd9CtZEWuu1F=MkcZ_imjuQTTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:27:33 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>, dcb314@...mail.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: use $SHELL to exec selftests

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org> 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 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> 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