Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Using -runs consistently in libFuzzer tests"
2018 Jul 06
1
Using -runs consistently in libFuzzer tests
This sounds reasonable to me. Some tests could probably use a seed as well.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:55 PM George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
wrote:
> Timeouts when running tests are annoying,
> but for many libFuzzer tests lacking -runs argument that’s an expected
> failure mode.
> Should we go through all the tests making sure that -runs is supplied?
>
>
2019 Jan 04
2
[Fuzzer] Test failure on Linux x86-64
FWIW I think that one was always flaky.
> On Jan 4, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> +Matt Morehouse <mailto:mascasa at google.com>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:43 AM David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Continuing my quixotic effort
2017 Aug 24
3
Building LLVM's fuzzers
George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> writes:
> Should -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER be also specified?
CMake is smart enough to infer that from C_COMPILER:
% grep CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER CMakeCache.txt
CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER:FILEPATH=/Users/bogner/llvm-lkgc/bin/clang++
>> On Aug 24, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote:
>>
>> (kcc, george:
2017 May 09
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
> On May 9, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanations! (it was worth asking)
>
> I do want to build libFuzzer itself (and its tests) using the just-built clang. So, llvm/runtimes then.
> I'd name the directory llvm/runtimes/libFuzzer, if possible (the old path was lib/Fuzzer which is how the tool got it's
2017 Apr 26
2
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,
2017 Oct 24
2
custom-crossover libFuzzer test
Hi Kostya,
custom-crossover test was failing for a while on an os x bot,
do you think you could take a look?
The failure is at http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/libFuzzer/8168/console <http://green.lab.llvm.org/green/job/libFuzzer/8168/console>.
Let me know if I can help narrowing it down.
George
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
2017 Apr 28
2
LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag
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
2017 May 09
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
wrote:
> Again, after offline conversation with Chris Bieneman:
>
> - move to compiler-rt would be too complicated due to change in licenses
> - it would make much more sense to move to “tools” folder instead, for
> the following reasons:
> * conceptually, it’s a tool, not a library
> *
2017 Jul 17
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 2:06 PM, Daniel Berlin <dannyb at google.com> wrote:
>
> This process works legally, but i can't speak to whether the foundation would be okay with it, as it may result in bad press, etc, if you rip code out.
Thank you for your reply!
I have two additional questions:
1) Why is it ripping the code out if compiler-rt is still part of LLVM?
2) Does it mean
2017 May 09
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
> On May 9, 2017, at 2:19 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote:
>
> +Chris.
>
> My understanding was that it is technically impossible for things in “lib”, as they are built first, and there’s no way to tell them to do that before “clang”.
> I’m not a CMake expert, and I might be wrong.
It is not impossible, it would just involve excessive hacks. Since it
2017 Jul 12
3
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
+ Chandler, Danny,
We are considering to move the libFuzzer code from llvm to compiler-rt, and
that implies a license change.
Will it be sufficient to do the following?
* e-mail to all contributors (a short list, below) asking for their
consent
* remove any code for which we did not get consent in, say, 1 week.
(BTW, this list is actually much shorter, I recognize many of these as
belonging
2017 Jul 12
3
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:54 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
2017 May 11
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
> On May 10, 2017, at 4:43 PM, George Karpenkov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, there’s another problem we have missed: libraries under `build/lib` are not installed into toolchain
> on mac os (and neither on linux, I would suppose).
Actually that isn't accurate. By default we don't install the LLVM libraries, but that is completely
2017 May 03
3
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>> From my understanding, all these problems can be solved entirely
>>
> by moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt, where (other) sanitizers already
>> reside.
>>
>
2017 Jul 12
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:30 AM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> One question: will it make sense to *copy* the code to the new location,
> work on it, then delete the code from the old location,
> instead of doing a move in a single commit?
> I don't expect any
2017 Jul 12
4
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:02 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com>
wrote:
> I’ve submitted a WIP PR: https://reviews.llvm.org/D35288
>
Thanks for working in this!
One question: will it make sense to *copy* the code to the new location,
work on it, then delete the code from the old location,
instead of doing a move in a single commit?
I don't expect any dramatic changes
2017 May 02
5
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
Hi All,
Currently libfuzzer depends on (often freshly built) clang, yet the dependency is not explicitly specified
in cmake.
That leads to various issues: for instance, it’s not possible to check out LLVM repo and run libfuzzer
tests: one would often need to compile fresh clang first, and then create a separate build directory,
where libfuzzer could be tested.
For the buildbot this problem is
2017 May 03
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote:
> Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com
> >
2017 Aug 22
4
llvm-pdbutil status?
Hi All,
As a part of a recent move of libFuzzer from LLVM to compiler-rt I am looking into updating the build code
for the libraries which use libFuzzer.
I have looked into tools/llvm-pdbutil, and “ninja llvm-pdbutil-fuzzer” does not build at all,
and the error refers to non-existent headers.
The last update to the codebase is reasonably recent, and was done in June 2017.
Is anyone using it?
2017 May 09
2
moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?
On 9 May 2017 at 18:55, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anyone see good reasons why libFuzzer should remain in llvm repo
>> > (as
>> > opposed to moving it to compiler-rt)?
>>
>> Does moving LibFuzzer to compiler-rt imply that it