lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selftests:firmware: fixes a call to a wrong function name
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jeffrin Jose T <ahiliation@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> This is a patch to the tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> file which fixes a bug which calls to a wrong function name,which in turn
> blocks the execution of certain tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeffrin Jose T <jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in>
>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> index 06d638e9dc62..cffdd4eb0a57 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> @@ -66,5 +66,5 @@ if [ -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK ]; then
> run_test_config_0003
> else
> echo "Running basic kernel configuration, working with your config"
> - run_test
> + run_tests
> fi

I find it confusing that run_tests() uses $1 and $2 but later ignores
them unless -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK, which is checked at both the
top level and in proc_set_*_fallback()... I'd expected the test to
happen only in run_tests() and have it removed from from
proc_set_*_fallback().

Regardless, the above patch is correct to run the tests. :)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-23 18:39    [W:0.046 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site