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]

Message-ID: <20220526101423.GB795802@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 18:14:23 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com>
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 Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 05:21:27PM +0100, Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> 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))

Sorry for long latency.

If the condition checking gets complex, seems to me it is reasonable to
use a static function (or a macro?) to encapsulate the logics.

> 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.

I personally prefer to use the condition:

  if (is_exe_shell_script() && ent->d_name[0] != '.')
      do_something...

The reason is the function is_exe_shell_script() is more common and we
use it easily in wider scope.

> > 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.

Yeah, I agree the checking the start char '.' is the right thing
to do.

Thanks,
Leo