Fixup libafl_fuzzbench-based fuzzers #2032
Conversation
|
This PR also restores the @DonggeLiu, would you think it appropriate to run a fuzzbench run for these fuzzers + a working symbolic fuzzer + baselines (AFL++ and libafl at least) against mruby? After #2028 lands. |
|
Yep sure, I would love to see the results too. Thanks for doing this, @addisoncrump! If you are interested in running them on more bug-based benchmarks, they (and their results) can be found on sbft23 branch and #2022. @Dammo3 kindly added some benchmarks recently. Two minor things:
|
| @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ jobs: | |||
| - libxslt_xpath | |||
| - mbedtls_fuzz_dtlsclient | |||
| - mbedtls_fuzz_dtlsclient_7c6b0e | |||
| - mruby_mruby_fuzzer | |||
| - mruby_mruby_fuzzer_8c8bbd | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DonggeLiu Maybe something worth noting: the CI will not fail if the benchmark doesn't exist!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, I did not know this, thanks!
I reckon this is low priority because it does not affect checking fuzzers or running experiments.
WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reckon it's low priority as well, but maybe something to keep in mind since it might inadvertently mark a fuzzer as "working" for a non-existent benchmark.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, created this: #2037
|
@addisoncrump Thanks for working on this! Is it planned to merge it anytime soon? |
|
This is ready to be merged. |
Fixes #2019.