linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf test: Shell - only run .sh shell files to skip other files

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:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:21:27 +0100
From:   Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
        suzuki.poulose@....com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        mike.leach@...aro.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        acme@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf test: Shell - only run .sh shell files to skip
 other files



On 4/10/22 03:28, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:28:58PM +0000, carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com wrote:
>> From: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>>
>> You edit your scripts in the tests and end up with your usual shell
>> backup files with ~ or .bak or something else at the end, but then your
>> next perf test run wants to run the backups too. You might also have perf
>> .data files in the directory or something else undesireable as well. You end
>> up chasing which test is the one you edited and the backup and have to keep
>> removing all the backup files, so automatically skip any files that are
>> not plain *.sh scripts to limit the time wasted in chasing ghosts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> index 3c34cb766724..3a02ba7a7a89 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> @@ -296,9 +296,22 @@ 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) && \
>> +		if (ent->d_name[0] != '.' && \
>> +			!is_directory(base, ent) && \
>>   			is_executable_file(base, ent) && \
>> -			ent->d_name[0] != '.')
>> +			is_shell_script(ent->d_name))
> 
> Just nitpick: since multiple conditions are added, seems to me it's good
> to use a single function is_executable_shell_script() to make decision
> if a file is an executable shell script.

I'd certainly make a function if this was being re-used, but as the 
"coding pattern" was to do all the tests already inside the if() in only 
one place, I kept with the style there and didn't change the code that 
didn't need changing. I can rewrite this code and basically make a 
function that is just an if ...:

bool is_exe_shell_script(const char *base, struct dirent *ent) {
    return ent->d_name[0] != '.'         && !is_directory(base, ent) &&
           is_executable_file(base, ent) && is_shell_script(ent->d_name);
}

And macro becomes:

#define for_each_shell_test(entlist, nr, base, ent) \
   for (int __i = 0; __i < nr && (ent = entlist[__i]); __i++) \
     if (is_shell(base, ent))

But one catch... it really should be is_non_hidden_exe_shell_script() as 
it's checking that it's not a hidden file AND is a shell script. Or do I 
keep the hidden file test outside of the function in the if? If we're 
nit picking then I need to know exactly what you want here as your 
suggested name is actually incorrect.

> And the condition checking 'ent->d_name[0] != '.'' would be redundant
> after we have checked the file suffix '.sh'.

This isn't actually redundant. You can have .something.sh :) If the idea 
is we skip anything with a . at the start first always... then the if 
(to me) is obvious.

> Thanks,
> Leo
> 
>> +
>> +static bool is_shell_script(const char *file)
>> +{
>> +	const char *ext;
>> +
>> +	ext = strrchr(file, '.');
>> +	if (!ext)
>> +		return false;
>> +	if (!strcmp(ext, ".sh"))
>> +		return true;
>> +	return false;
>> +}
>>   
>>   static const char *shell_tests__dir(char *path, size_t size)
>>   {
>> -- 
>> 2.32.0
>>