linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf build: Specify that spellcheck should use the bash dialect.

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: <874iwa71mo.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 10:40:15 -0700
From: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@...il.com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,  Arnaldo
 Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,  Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
  Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,  Jiri Olsa
 <jolsa@...nel.org>,  Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,  Adrian Hunter
 <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,  "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf build: Specify that spellcheck should use the bash
 dialect.

Hi James,

James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org> writes:

> If we're enforcing bash style with static analysis shouldn't we also
> change all the hashbangs to bash? Recently there have been changes to
> change sh to bash in some of the tests so presumably the hard rule for
> sh is no more?
>
> In the past I've had to replace bashisms that didn't work in sh but it
> would be nice to have only one language to write tests in. I doubt
> anyone running the tests today is running somewhere without bash, or
> that changing it will break anything. If anything it will fix more
> bashisms that have already been written.
>
> Just for reference there are 34 #!/bin/bash and 42 #!/bin/sh in
> tools/perf/tests

That sounds reasonable to me. Writing portable shell is a hassle and if
we already assume a working /bin/bash in some places, I don't see a
reason not to use it for the others.

Regarding this patch, shellcheck will use the file extension or shebang
only if it does not find a 'shell' directive in a .shellcheckrc. So that
change will still require this patch.

I saw it was used in other places, so I assumed this patch was fine:

$ find tools/perf -name Build | xargs grep bash
tools/perf/Build:	$(Q)$(call echo-cmd,test)shellcheck -s bash -a -S warning "$<" > $@ || (cat $@ && rm $@ && false)
tools/perf/trace/beauty/Build:	$(Q)$(call echo-cmd,test)shellcheck -s bash -a -S warning "$<" > $@ || (cat $@ && rm $@ && false)

Collin