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>
George Karpenkov via llvm-dev
2017-May-08 17:30 UTC
[llvm-dev] LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag
The offline consensus was in favor of -fsanitize=fuzzer in order to group it together with other runtime verification tools.> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: > > 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20170508/cd573bd8/attachment.html>
On 8 May 2017 at 18:30, George Karpenkov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> The offline consensus was in favor of -fsanitize=fuzzer in order to group it > together with other runtime verification tools.SGTM. LibFuzzer requires SanitizerCoverage to work so (at least from my perspective) it makes sense that is associated with the Sanitizers.