2017-02-01 17:45 GMT+01:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>:> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> The blog entry [1] suggest that one of the buildbots constantly fuzzes >> clang and clang-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the >> fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. >> Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). > > Isn’t it this stage? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/2755/steps/stage2%2Fasan%2Bassertions%20check-fuzzer/logs/stdioTo me it looks like just the compilation and the unit+regression tests ("ninja check-fuzzer", not even depending on clang). It also completes in only 10 minutes, which is not a lot for fuzzing. Michael
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > 2017-02-01 17:45 GMT+01:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: >> >>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The blog entry [1] suggest that one of the buildbots constantly fuzzes >>> clang and clang-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the >>> fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. >>> Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). >> >> Isn’t it this stage? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/2755/steps/stage2%2Fasan%2Bassertions%20check-fuzzer/logs/stdio > > To me it looks like just the compilation and the unit+regression tests > ("ninja check-fuzzer", not even depending on clang). It also completes > in only 10 minutes, which is not a lot for fuzzing.Yes, I believe you’re right! — Mehdi
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:> > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:58 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > > > 2017-02-01 17:45 GMT+01:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: > >> > >>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> The blog entry [1] suggest that one of the buildbots constantly fuzzes > >>> clang and clang-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the > >>> fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. > >>> Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). > >> > >> Isn’t it this stage? http://lab.llvm.org:8011/ > builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer/builds/2755/steps/stage2%2Fasan% > 2Bassertions%20check-fuzzer/logs/stdio > > > > To me it looks like just the compilation and the unit+regression tests > > ("ninja check-fuzzer", not even depending on clang). It also completes > > in only 10 minutes, which is not a lot for fuzzing. > > Yes, I believe you’re right! >Right now lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fuzzer tests 'check-fuzzer' which is a regression test suite for libFuzzer (set of synthetic puzzles) and also runs some of the fuzzing benchmarks from https://github.com/google/fuzzer-test-suite/ It does not fuzz anything from LLVM any more.> > — > Mehdi > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170201/0a09b0f7/attachment.html>