linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 01/14] perf test: Refactor shell tests allowing subdirs

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:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 09:38:45 +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 v5 01/14] perf test: Refactor shell tests allowing subdirs



On 8/6/22 09:37, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 03:52:43PM +0100, carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +int list_script_max_width(void)
>> +{
>> +	list_script_files(); /* Ensure we have scanned all scriptd */
> 
> s/scriptd/scripts/

oops. fixed. v6 will come with that.

>> +	return files_max_width;
>> +}
> 
> [...]
> 
>>   struct shell_test {
>>   	const char *dir;
>>   	const char *file;
>> @@ -385,33 +302,17 @@ static int shell_test__run(struct test_suite *test, int subdir __maybe_unused)
>>   static int run_shell_tests(int argc, const char *argv[], int i, int width,
>>   				struct intlist *skiplist)
>>   {
>> -	struct dirent **entlist;
>> -	struct dirent *ent;
>> -	int n_dirs, e;
>> -	char path_dir[PATH_MAX];
>> -	struct shell_test st = {
>> -		.dir = shell_tests__dir(path_dir, sizeof(path_dir)),
>> -	};
>> -
>> -	if (st.dir == NULL)
>> -		return -1;
>> +	struct shell_test st;
>> +	const struct script_file *files, *file;
>>   
>> -	n_dirs = scandir(st.dir, &entlist, NULL, alphasort);
>> -	if (n_dirs == -1) {
>> -		pr_err("failed to open shell test directory: %s\n",
>> -			st.dir);
>> -		return -1;
>> -	}
>> -
>> -	for_each_shell_test(entlist, n_dirs, st.dir, ent) {
>> +	files = list_script_files();
>> +	if (!files)
>> +		return 0;
>> +	for (file = files; file->dir; file++) {
>>   		int curr = i++;
>> -		char desc[256];
>>   		struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>>   			{
>> -				.desc = shell_test__description(desc,
>> -								sizeof(desc),
>> -								st.dir,
>> -								ent->d_name),
>> +				.desc = file->desc,
>>   				.run_case = shell_test__run,
>>   			},
>>   			{ .name = NULL, }
>> @@ -421,12 +322,13 @@ static int run_shell_tests(int argc, const char *argv[], int i, int width,
>>   			.test_cases = test_cases,
>>   			.priv = &st,
>>   		};
>> +		st.dir = file->dir;
>>   
>>   		if (test_suite.desc == NULL ||
>>   		    !perf_test__matches(test_suite.desc, curr, argc, argv))
>>   			continue;
>>   
>> -		st.file = ent->d_name;
>> +		st.file = file->file;
> 
> I am just wandering if we can remove "st" in this function, finally I
> found you are right, the "st" (struct shell_test) will be used in the
> function shell_test__run(), so let's keep as it is.
> 
>>   		pr_info("%3d: %-*s:", i, width, test_suite.desc);
>>   
>>   		if (intlist__find(skiplist, i)) {
>> @@ -436,10 +338,6 @@ static int run_shell_tests(int argc, const char *argv[], int i, int width,
>>   
>>   		test_and_print(&test_suite, 0);
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	for (e = 0; e < n_dirs; e++)
>> -		zfree(&entlist[e]);
>> -	free(entlist);
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
>>   
>> @@ -448,7 +346,7 @@ static int __cmd_test(int argc, const char *argv[], struct intlist *skiplist)
>>   	struct test_suite *t;
>>   	unsigned int j, k;
>>   	int i = 0;
>> -	int width = shell_tests__max_desc_width();
>> +	int width = list_script_max_width();
>>   
>>   	for_each_test(j, k, t) {
>>   		int len = strlen(test_description(t, -1));
>> @@ -529,36 +427,22 @@ static int __cmd_test(int argc, const char *argv[], struct intlist *skiplist)
>>   
>>   static int perf_test__list_shell(int argc, const char **argv, int i)
>>   {
>> -	struct dirent **entlist;
>> -	struct dirent *ent;
>> -	int n_dirs, e;
>> -	char path_dir[PATH_MAX];
>> -	const char *path = shell_tests__dir(path_dir, sizeof(path_dir));
>> -
>> -	if (path == NULL)
>> -		return -1;
>> +	const struct script_file *files, *file;
>>   
>> -	n_dirs = scandir(path, &entlist, NULL, alphasort);
>> -	if (n_dirs == -1)
>> -		return -1;
>> -
>> -	for_each_shell_test(entlist, n_dirs, path, ent) {
>> +	files = list_script_files();
>> +	if (!files)
>> +		return 0;
>> +	for (file = files; file->dir; file++) {
>>   		int curr = i++;
>> -		char bf[256];
>>   		struct test_suite t = {
>> -			.desc = shell_test__description(bf, sizeof(bf), path, ent->d_name),
>> +			.desc = file->desc
>>   		};
>>   
>>   		if (!perf_test__matches(t.desc, curr, argc, argv))
>>   			continue;
>>   
>>   		pr_info("%3d: %s\n", i, t.desc);
>> -
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	for (e = 0; e < n_dirs; e++)
>> -		zfree(&entlist[e]);
>> -	free(entlist);
>>   	return 0;
>>   }
> 
> Except a minor typo, the patch looks good to me, it's a good
> refactoring and enhancement for shell script testing.
> 
> I reviewed the change one by one line, at least I cannot find any logic
> error.
> 
> With typo fixing:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> 
> I'd leave this patch for maintainers to review it.  Just a caveat, given
> it's a big patch, as Carsten replied it's good that take the patch as a
> total new code for searching shell scripts, this would be easier for
> understanding the change.
> 
> Thanks,
> Leo