Build actual argv for launching recursion test to avoid future warning about using an empty argv in execve().
Cc: Eric Biederman ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: Alexey Dobriyan adobriyan@gmail.com Cc: Shuah Khan shuah@kernel.org Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org --- tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c index 2dbd5bc45b3e..35348db00c52 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c @@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ #include <sys/mount.h> #include <unistd.h>
+#define FILENAME "/tmp/1" +#define HASHBANG "#!" FILENAME "\n" + int main(void) { + char * const argv[] = { FILENAME, NULL }; + int rv; + if (unshare(CLONE_NEWNS) == -1) { if (errno == ENOSYS || errno == EPERM) { fprintf(stderr, "error: unshare, errno %d\n", errno); @@ -44,21 +50,19 @@ int main(void) return 1; }
-#define FILENAME "/tmp/1"
int fd = creat(FILENAME, 0700); if (fd == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "error: creat, errno %d\n", errno); return 1; } -#define S "#!" FILENAME "\n" - if (write(fd, S, strlen(S)) != strlen(S)) { + if (write(fd, HASHBANG, strlen(HASHBANG)) != strlen(HASHBANG)) { fprintf(stderr, "error: write, errno %d\n", errno); return 1; } close(fd);
- int rv = execve(FILENAME, NULL, NULL); + rv = execve(FILENAME, argv, NULL); if (rv == -1 && errno == ELOOP) { return 0; }
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:08:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Build actual argv for launching recursion test to avoid future warning about using an empty argv in execve().
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c @@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ #include <sys/mount.h> #include <unistd.h> +#define FILENAME "/tmp/1" +#define HASHBANG "#!" FILENAME "\n"
int main(void) {
- char * const argv[] = { FILENAME, NULL };
- int rv;
Can we move out of -Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality in tests at least?
- int rv = execve(FILENAME, NULL, NULL);
- rv = execve(FILENAME, argv, NULL);
int rv = execve(FILENAME, (char*[]){FILENAME, NULL}, NULL);
is cleaner (and modern)!
if (rv == -1 && errno == ELOOP) { return 0; }
On 2/2/22 8:13 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:08:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Build actual argv for launching recursion test to avoid future warning about using an empty argv in execve().
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c @@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ #include <sys/mount.h> #include <unistd.h> +#define FILENAME "/tmp/1" +#define HASHBANG "#!" FILENAME "\n"
- int main(void) {
- char * const argv[] = { FILENAME, NULL };
- int rv;
Can we move out of -Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality in tests at least?
selftest like the rest of the kernel follows the same coding guidelines. It will follow the moving "-Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality" when the rest of the kernel does.
Looks like this topic was discussed in the following: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/c6fda26e8d134264b04f...
thanks, -- Shuah
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:38:57AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 2/2/22 8:13 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:08:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Build actual argv for launching recursion test to avoid future warning about using an empty argv in execve().
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c @@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ #include <sys/mount.h> #include <unistd.h> +#define FILENAME "/tmp/1" +#define HASHBANG "#!" FILENAME "\n"
- int main(void) {
- char * const argv[] = { FILENAME, NULL };
- int rv;
Can we move out of -Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality in tests at least?
selftest like the rest of the kernel follows the same coding guidelines. It will follow the moving "-Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality" when the rest of the kernel does.
Looks like this topic was discussed in the following: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/c6fda26e8d134264b04f...
The only real argument is "gcc miscompiles /proc" to which adding -Wdeclaration-after-statement looks like a too big hammer.
Why can't we have nice things?
On 2/2/22 2:00 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:38:57AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
On 2/2/22 8:13 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:08:07PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
Build actual argv for launching recursion test to avoid future warning about using an empty argv in execve().
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/exec/recursion-depth.c @@ -24,8 +24,14 @@ #include <sys/mount.h> #include <unistd.h> +#define FILENAME "/tmp/1" +#define HASHBANG "#!" FILENAME "\n"
- int main(void) {
- char * const argv[] = { FILENAME, NULL };
- int rv;
Can we move out of -Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality in tests at least?
selftest like the rest of the kernel follows the same coding guidelines. It will follow the moving "-Wdeclaration-after-statement mentality" when the rest of the kernel does.
Looks like this topic was discussed in the following: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-kbuild/patch/c6fda26e8d134264b04f...
The only real argument is "gcc miscompiles /proc" to which adding -Wdeclaration-after-statement looks like a too big hammer.
Either way - selftest will stay in sync with the kernel coding standards for good reasons. Doing its own thing confuses developers and makes it hard for maintainers.
thanks, -- Shuah
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Alexey Dobriyan -
Kees Cook -
Shuah Khan