[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c2f5f24f-1479-a84d-ab2a-27fa47f44d4a@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 00:57:41 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
vkabatov@...hat.com, jbenc@...hat.com, yhs@...com, kafai@...com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/2] BPF selftests test runner 'test_progs'
use proper shell exit codes
On 7/7/20 9:12 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> This patchset makes it easier to use test_progs from shell scripts, by using
> proper shell exit codes. The process's exit status should be a number
> between 0 and 255 as defined in man exit(3) else it will be masked to comply.
>
> Shell exit codes used by programs should be below 127. As 127 and above are
> used for indicating signals. E.g. 139 means 11=SIGSEGV $((139 & 127))=11.
> POSIX defines in man wait(3p) signal check if WIFSIGNALED(STATUS) and
> WTERMSIG(139)=11. (Hint: cmd 'kill -l' list signals and their numbers).
>
> Using Segmentation fault as an example, as these have happened before with
> different tests (that are part of test_progs). CI people writing these
> shell-scripts could pickup these hints and report them, if that makes sense.
>
> ---
>
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer (2):
> selftests/bpf: test_progs use another shell exit on non-actions
> selftests/bpf: test_progs avoid minus shell exit codes
Applied, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists