linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf test: Shell - Limit to only run executable scripts in tests

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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:18:49 +0000
From:   Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     coresight@...ts.linaro.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        mike.leach@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
        inux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf test: Shell - Limit to only run executable
 scripts in tests



On 12/17/21 14:55, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 16:03, carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com wrote:
>> From: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>>
>> Perf test's shell runner will just run everything in the tests
>> directory (as long as it's not another directory or does not begin
>> with a dot), but sometimes you find files in there that are not shell
>> scripts - perf.data output for example if you do some testing and then
>> the next time you run perf test it tries to run these. Check the files
>> are executable so they are actually intended to be test scripts and
>> not just some "random junk" files there.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c |  4 +++-
>>   tools/perf/util/path.c          | 12 ++++++++++++
>>   tools/perf/util/path.h          |  1 +
>>   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c 
>> b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> index 8cb5a1c3489e..ece272b55587 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> @@ -295,7 +295,9 @@ static const char *shell_test__description(char 
>> *description, size_t size,
>>   #define for_each_shell_test(entlist, nr, base, 
>> ent)                    \
>>       for (int __i = 0; __i < nr && (ent = entlist[__i]); __i++)    \
>> -        if (!is_directory(base, ent) && ent->d_name[0] != '.')
>> +        if (!is_directory(base, ent) && \
>> +            is_executable_file(base, ent) && \
>> +            ent->d_name[0] != '.')
> 
> If we reorder the checks, we could potentially avoid a few
> syscalls for hidden items. i.e., if we do ent->d_name[0] != '.'
> first.

Could do that, thought this certainly is not a performance critical path 
and the code certainly shows that and doesn't care - can fix that too.

>>   static const char *shell_tests__dir(char *path, size_t size)
>>   {
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/path.c b/tools/perf/util/path.c
>> index caed0336429f..7dde8c230ae8 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/path.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/path.c
>> @@ -92,3 +92,15 @@ bool is_directory(const char *base_path, const 
>> struct dirent *dent)
>>       return S_ISDIR(st.st_mode);
>>   }
>> +
>> +bool is_executable_file(const char *base_path, const struct dirent 
>> *dent)
>> +{
>> +    char path[PATH_MAX];
>> +    struct stat st;
>> +
>> +    sprintf(path, "%s/%s", base_path, dent->d_name);
> 
> Should this be snprintf() for additional safety ?

Ylou're right - I was just following the existing pattern int he code 
right above in is_directory() that uses sprintf :) I can fix both.

>> +    if (stat(path, &st))
>> +        return false;
>> +
>> +    return !S_ISDIR(st.st_mode) && (st.st_mode & S_IXUSR);
> 
> Otherwise looks good to me.
> 
> Suzuki