test-security-check.py
script in our CI. This PR adds a target for that: make test-security
and adds it to a few CI jobs.
test-security-check.py
script in our CI. This PR adds a target for that: make test-security
and adds it to a few CI jobs.
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
20@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ def write_testcode(filename):
21
22 def call_security_check(cc, source, executable, options):
23 subprocess.check_call([cc,source,'-o',executable] + options)
24- p = subprocess.Popen(['./security-check.py',executable], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, stdin=subprocess.PIPE, universal_newlines=True)
25+ p = subprocess.Popen(['../contrib/devtools/security-check.py',executable], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, stdin=subprocess.PIPE, universal_newlines=True)
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.
9@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ export CONTAINER_NAME=ci_native_tsan
10 export DOCKER_NAME_TAG=ubuntu:16.04
11 export PACKAGES="clang llvm python3-zmq qtbase5-dev qttools5-dev-tools libevent-dev bsdmainutils libboost-system-dev libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-test-dev libboost-thread-dev libdb5.3++-dev libminiupnpc-dev libzmq3-dev libqrencode-dev"
12 export NO_DEPENDS=1
13+export RUN_SECURITY_TESTS=false
Instead of setting it to false in every config file, why not set it to false by default and only explicitly set it to true in the one config that needs it?
If every config has to specify the value, it sort of defeats the purpose of the default value.
Have rebased and should have fixed up all the issues here.
The same is already run via gitian, right?
We run the symbol and security checks in gitian, but not the security-check test.
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.
Concept ACK
Also looked at the code and it looks good to me, but I don’t feel qualified enough in this area to give a full ACK at the moment.
341@@ -342,3 +342,14 @@ clean-local: clean-docs
342 rm -rf coverage_percent.txt test_bitcoin.coverage/ total.coverage/ fuzz.coverage/ test/tmp/ cache/ $(OSX_APP)
343 rm -rf test/functional/__pycache__ test/functional/test_framework/__pycache__ test/cache share/rpcauth/__pycache__
344 rm -rf osx_volname dist/ dpi36.background.tiff dpi72.background.tiff
345+
346+test-security:
test-security-check
target instead of test-security
? I mean, it’s a test for the binary security check. It doesn’t check the security of the actual binaries.
test-security-check
.