Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change spectest fuzzing to throw out some fuzz inputs #5597

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 19, 2023

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

A fuzz bug came in last night from #5567 where spectest fuzzing will first generate a config, possibly with SSE features for SIMD disabled, only to have SIMD later enabled by set_spectest_compliant. This commit fixes the issue by changing to is_spectest_compliant as a query and throwing out the fuzz case if it isn't. This means that the spectest fuzzer will throw out more inputs but means we can continue to generate interesting configs and such for other inputs.

A fuzz bug came in last night from bytecodealliance#5567 where spectest fuzzing will
first generate a config, possibly with SSE features for SIMD disabled,
only to have SIMD later enabled by `set_spectest_compliant`. This commit
fixes the issue by changing to `is_spectest_compliant` as a query and
throwing out the fuzz case if it isn't. This means that the spectest
fuzzer will throw out more inputs but means we can continue to generate
interesting configs and such for other inputs.
@github-actions github-actions bot added the fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure label Jan 19, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

Subscribe to Label Action

cc @fitzgen

This issue or pull request has been labeled: "fuzzing"

Thus the following users have been cc'd because of the following labels:

  • fitzgen: fuzzing

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this label, edit the .github/subscribe-to-label.json configuration file.

Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

@abrown abrown left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does the "throw out" rate end up being with this change? (If you have it handy...)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

Ah sorry no I don't have the rate for this, but historically libfuzzer has done well with this sort of strategy since the coverage information quickly shows inputs that don't get past this check.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton merged commit 1f534c5 into bytecodealliance:main Jan 19, 2023
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the fix-fuzz branch January 19, 2023 18:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
fuzzing Issues related to our fuzzing infrastructure
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants