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

libjpeg-turbo getting less coverage? #2010

Open
DanBlackwell opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

libjpeg-turbo getting less coverage? #2010

DanBlackwell opened this issue Jul 31, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@DanBlackwell
Copy link

DanBlackwell commented Jul 31, 2024

Not sure if this is an issue on my end, but I've noticed that libjpeg-turbo is doing significantly worse than it was previously. I've spent a bunch of time today trying to figure out what I broke, but then I spotted that it also seems to affect AFL++ which may suggest it's not on my end.

Looking at here: 2024-07-23-aflpp, aflplusplus is stuck on libjpeg-turbo. where as here: 2024-06-07-bases-aflpp, it seems fine.

With my stuff, I saw that this is fine: 2024-06-19-prescientfuzz.
But this is stuck: 2024-07-03-prescientfuzz.

Looking at the logs, it almost seems like the starting corpus has changed?

From 2024-06-19:

[Testcase #0] run time: 0h-0m-8s, clients: 1, corpus: 476, objectives: 0, executions: 3047, exec/sec: 538.2, edges: 2501/28005 (8%)
We imported 476 inputs from disk.

From 2024-07-03:

[Testcase #0] run time: 0h-0m-13s, clients: 1, corpus: 425, objectives: 0, executions: 3050, exec/sec: 324.2, edges: 1828/16258 (11%)
We imported 425 inputs from disk.

EDIT: the two above have different numbers of total edges; was the fuzzing harness changed or something?

I do wonder if it's related to this oss_fuzz_corpus flag (#1999) somehow. Maybe this is already fixed and I just need to update the base for my PR. Perhaps just running libafl and aflplusplus without using docker's cache (even for just an hour) would be enough to do a quick sanity check. What seems odd though, is that this repo had no commits on main between june 19 and july 3...

@DanBlackwell
Copy link
Author

Also, the new experiment from #1985 (comment), report: here has the low coverage numbers too (for all fuzzers)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant