llvm dev - Apr 2017 - LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag

Hi All,

Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a file
with libfuzzer:
one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the driver
would specify
coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically.
I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to
“-ffuzzer”,
as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect.

Thanks,
George

on the one hand, -fsanitize=fuzzer might indeed be confusing as it behaves
in somewhat different way compared to other sanitizers
Major difference: links in a library with main()
On the other hand, I like "-fsanitize=fuzzer,address" more than
"-fsanitize=address
-ffuzzer"

--kcc

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:02 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at
apple.com>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a
> file with libfuzzer:
> one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the
> driver would specify
> coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically.
> I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to
> “-ffuzzer”,
> as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect.
>
> Thanks,
> George
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170427/7702ffa2/attachment.html>

I think libfuzzer deserves its own flag. I view fuzzing as a smarter testing
technology while sanitizers are associated with inserting additional checks into
the program. The different linking behavior is another major difference.

Anna.
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> on the one hand, -fsanitize=fuzzer might indeed be confusing as it behaves
in somewhat different way compared to other sanitizers
> Major difference: links in a library with main()
> On the other hand, I like "-fsanitize=fuzzer,address" more than
"-fsanitize=address -ffuzzer"
> 
> --kcc 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:02 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at
apple.com <mailto:ekarpenkov at apple.com>> wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a
file with libfuzzer:
> one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the
driver would specify
> coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically.
> I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to
“-ffuzzer”,
> as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect.
> 
> Thanks,
> George
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170428/f66aeb40/attachment-0001.html>