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: <6f524405-a9a7-45c4-bf4d-9ae33e52bfbc@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:10:40 +0100
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@...il.com>
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.

On 20/06/2025 6:40 pm, Collin Funk wrote:
> 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

In that case:

Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>

And I'll send the bulk hashbang change separately.