Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH luajit] test: adapt tests checking loading bytecode files

[Igor Munkin via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>]

Sergey,

On 12.10.21, Sergey Kaplun wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Thanks for the fixes!
> 
> On 11.10.21, Максим Корякшин wrote:

<snipped>

> > >> --- FIXME: Loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or "#")
> > >> +-- Loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or "#")
> > >> -- is disabled for security reasons since LuaJIT-2.0.0-beta10.
> > >> -- For more information see comment for `lj_lex_setup()`
> > >> -- in <src/lj_lex.c>.
> > >> -- Also see commit 53a285c0c3544ff5dea7c67b741c3c2d06d22b47
> > >> -- (Disable loading bytecode with an extra header (BOM or #!).).
> > >> -- See also  https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/5691 .
> > >> --- The test is disabled for LuaJIT.
> > >> -prepfile("#comment with a binary file\n"..string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> > >> --- RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> > >> --- checkout("1\n")
> > >> -
> > >> -prepfile("#comment with a binary file\r\n"..string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> > >> --- FIXME: Behavior is different for LuaJIT. See the comment above.
> > >> --- The test is disabled for LuaJIT.
> > >> --- RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> > >> --- checkout("1\n")
> > >> +-- The test is adapted to LuaJIT behavior.
> > >> +prepfile(string.dump(loadstring("print(1)")))
> > >> +RUN("lua %s > %s", prog, out)
> > >> +checkout("1\n")
> > >
> > >May be it is better to test `NoRun()` for 1 binary file with a comment at the
> > >first string and `Run()` for another binary file without the comment.
> 
> What are your thoughts about this idea?

What are you going to check with this? To check whether unsafe bytecode
loading is still disabled?

> 

<snipped>

> -- 
> Best regards,
> Sergey Kaplun

-- 
Best regards,
IM