Re: [PATCH 1/5] test_kmod: make selftest executable

From: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
	dcb314@hotmail.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] test_kmod: make selftest executable
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:57:52 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d98d850-4a6a-195e-ecd7-794678f94b31@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB=NE6XpAs3RMrRB7bXZa1ZzZu=NvpVHVkBCT4CmKBJSZpAtcw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Luis,

On 08/02/2017 04:55 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Wed,  2 Aug 2017 14:14:46 -0700 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We had just forgotten to do this.

Could you please include the real reason you need this change.
My guess is, you are seeing this failure.

make -C kmod/ run_tests 
make: Entering directory '/lkml/linux_4.13/tools/testing/selftests/kmod'
/bin/sh: 1: ./kmod.sh: Permission denied
selftests:  kmod.sh [FAIL]

>>>
>>> Fixes: 39258f448d71 ("kmod: add test driver to stress test the module loader")
>>> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh | 0
>>>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>  mode change 100644 => 100755 tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh
>>> old mode 100644
>>> new mode 100755
>>
>> This is pretty fragile - I'm not sure that patch/diff are capable of
>> communicating a bare chmod.  If someone does a "patch -p1 < patch-4.14"
>> or whatever, this change is likely to get lost.
> 
> True if using regular diff, if using git, it will catch it though.
> 
>> It's more robust to not care about the x bit at all.  Something like
>> this?
>>
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk~a
>> +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/lib.mk
>> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ all: $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_
>>  define RUN_TESTS
>>         @for TEST in $(TEST_GEN_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS); do \
>>                 BASENAME_TEST=`basename $$TEST`;        \
>> -               cd `dirname $$TEST`; (./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests:  $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\
>> +               cd `dirname $$TEST`; (/bin/sh ./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests:  $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\
>>         done;
>>  endef
>>
>>
>> (probably incomplete, should presumably use $SHELL or something)
> 
> Probably a good idea indeed, Shuah ?

I think this is a good idea. At the moment any script without +x fails.
It would be good change to make in the generic layer.

> 
> Although I'll note I also do like to run selftest scripts on my own
> too, so the chmod is still desirable.

You will have to run it under bash kmod/kmod.sh - It can be painful.

This is one of the reasons a lot of the scripts are executable.
I am curious how you didn't catch this before.

I can take this one. Please fix the change log though. That will
explain why this change is made.

thanks,
-- Shuah