wip: Split fuzz binary (take 2) #30882

dergoegge · 2024-09-12T15:16:51Z

In addition to the benefits listed in #28971, this should also enable us to use https://github.com/ossf/fuzz-introspector provided by oss-fuzz. Our current runtime harness selection blocks introspector's static analysis from working properly (e.g. it can't statically determine which functions are reachable by a given harness).

This PR uses the approach suggested here: #29010 (comment). The list of available harnesses is determined (prior to compiling) by grepping for harness names in FUZZ_TARGET invocations. When compiling with -DBUILD_INDIVIDUAL_FUZZ_BINARIES=ON, individual binaries for each harness are produced that no longer include the runtime lookup via the FUZZ environment variable.

cmake -B build_fuzz \
  -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON \
  -DBUILD_INDIVIDUAL_FUZZ_BINARIES=ON \
  -DSANITIZERS=fuzzer
cmake --build build_fuzz

build_fuzz/src/test/fuzz will contain the individual binaries, which are prefixed with fuzz_*.

I'm opening this now to get some early feedback, there are still a few things to address:

mention -DBUILD_INDIVIDUAL_FUZZ_BINARIES in the docs
include wallet harnesses
CI job that builds individual binaries (perhaps verify that the list of produced harnesses matches the monolithic binary)

DrahtBot · 2024-09-12T15:16:55Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/30882.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.
A summary of reviews will appear here.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#31333 (fuzz: Implement G_TEST_GET_FULL_NAME by hodlinator)
#28676 ([WIP] Cluster mempool implementation by sdaftuar)
#28584 (Fuzz: extend CConnman tests by vasild)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

dergoegge · 2024-09-12T15:20:14Z

src/test/fuzz/util/CMakeLists.txt

-  target_compile_definitions(test_fuzz PRIVATE PROVIDE_FUZZ_MAIN_FUNCTION)
+if(BUILD_INDIVIDUAL_FUZZ_BINARIES)
+  # bash command produces list of harnesses: <harness name> <source file>
+  execute_process(


Currently an individual test_fuzz_* lib and fuzz_* binary is produced for each harness. It's kind of ugly to duplicate this loop but I'm not sure to avoid it. Another loop would likely need to be added for the wallet harnesses as well.

@hebasto @fanquake @maflcko Any ideas?

dergoegge · 2024-09-12T15:21:40Z

Trying to produce an introspector report using this branch: https://github.com/dergoegge/oss-fuzz/tree/2024-09-bitcoin-introspector

DrahtBot · 2024-09-13T05:07:37Z

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
_{Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/30061858064}

Hints

Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.

The failure may happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the
affected test.
An intermittent issue.

Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

…bench)

DrahtBot · 2024-11-21T16:10:40Z

🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase.

DrahtBot · 2025-02-18T00:42:37Z

⌛ There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

maflcko · 2025-02-18T06:37:18Z

It is now using FI-light, see https://introspector.oss-fuzz.com/project-profile?project=bitcoin-core and google/oss-fuzz#12983. Though, I am not sure about the takeaways.

dergoegge · 2025-02-18T14:08:33Z

The full report (https://storage.googleapis.com/oss-fuzz-introspector/bitcoin-core/inspector-report/20250216/fuzz_report.html) still seems blocked on our dynamic harness look up. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing.

maflcko · 2025-02-18T14:13:43Z

No it is the right thing. I just wanted to leave a comment to say that FI will now fallback to the light version by default, so the build is already passing, but the result didn't look like it could be used.

It could still make sense to try a FI run on this branch to see if it will help.

maflcko · 2025-02-18T14:16:52Z

The changes here could even be useful for afl++ on their own, but I haven't tried that either, as I am using libfuzzer.

dergoegge · 2025-02-18T14:24:37Z

It could still make sense to try a FI run on this branch to see if it will help.

I've tried in the past but I kept running out of memory on a 128GB machine (see ossf/fuzz-introspector#1742). I don't know how much more memory is needed currently. The maintainer indicated that they'd look at it but doesn't look like they had time for this so far.

The changes here could even be useful for afl++ on their own, but I haven't tried that either, as I am using libfuzzer.

Yes, I listed some of the benefits in #28971. I do think getting FI to work would be the bigger benefit however.

DrahtBot · 2025-05-18T00:17:36Z

⌛ There hasn't been much activity lately and the patch still needs rebase. What is the status here?

Is it still relevant? ➡️ Please solve the conflicts to make it ready for review and to ensure the CI passes.
Is it no longer relevant? ➡️ Please close.
Did the author lose interest or time to work on this? ➡️ Please close it and mark it 'Up for grabs' with the label, so that it can be picked up in the future.

maflcko · 2025-06-02T07:08:59Z

cc @dergoegge . the issue #28971 is still open, so I guess this pull can be closed or rebased?

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

dergoegge force-pushed the 2024-09-split-fuzz branch from 66c288a to d527100 Compare September 12, 2024 15:25

DrahtBot added the CI failed label Sep 13, 2024

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2024

Cluster mempool implementation #28676

Open

8 tasks

This was referenced Sep 13, 2024

Running out of memory when generating report for Bitcoin Core ossf/fuzz-introspector#1742

Open

test: cover base[32|58|64] with symmetric roundtrip fuzz (and padding) tests #30746

Merged

dergoegge force-pushed the 2024-09-split-fuzz branch from d527100 to 9aca33e Compare October 1, 2024 10:31

dergoegge added 3 commits October 1, 2024 14:55

[fuzz] Avoid FUZZ_TARGET invocation in namespace

6f08bc5

[test] Define G_TRANSLATION_FUN per test binary (fuzz, test_bitcoin, …

151a4f5

…bench)

wip individual fuzz bins

0cb1f4c

dergoegge force-pushed the 2024-09-split-fuzz branch from 9aca33e to 0cb1f4c Compare October 1, 2024 13:55

maflcko mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2024

fuzz: Add fuzz-only build mode option for targets #31028

Closed

This was referenced Oct 8, 2024

RFC: build: support for pre-compiled headers. #31053

Closed

wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys #29675

Open

This was referenced Nov 9, 2024

Fuzz: extend CConnman tests #28584

Open

scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval #31260

Open

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2024

fuzz: Implement G_TEST_GET_FULL_NAME #31333

Merged

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Nov 21, 2024

maflcko added the Upstream label Feb 18, 2025

dergoegge closed this Jun 2, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

wip: Split fuzz binary (take 2) #30882

wip: Split fuzz binary (take 2) #30882

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

dergoegge Sep 12, 2024

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 13, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Nov 21, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented May 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wip: Split fuzz binary (take 2) #30882

wip: Split fuzz binary (take 2) #30882

Uh oh!

Conversation

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 12, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

dergoegge Sep 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Sep 13, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Nov 21, 2024

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Feb 18, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented May 18, 2025

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Jun 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

dergoegge commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Sep 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading