-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30k
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
Improvements of OSS-Fuzz integration #33724
Comments
W.r.t. part 1: it should be fairly straightforward to add a flag to configure.py that gets forwarded to the gyp build files, where the appropriate defines and compiler flags are then added. a7ae7aa is a recent example. It also demonstrates how you can remove already defined flags with Use
Do you want to open a pull request? If you can't get it to work, don't worry - just open the pull request and we'll step through it. |
Perfect!
Yes it's set by Google's service.
Okay awesome and yup sounds good - I will get the above up and running and then open a PR! Thanks for the detailed assistance. |
Refs: google/oss-fuzz#3860 Fixes: #33724 PR-URL: #34761 Fixes: #33724 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Refs: google/oss-fuzz#3860 Fixes: #33724 PR-URL: #34761 Fixes: #33724 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Refs: google/oss-fuzz#3860 Fixes: #33724 PR-URL: #34761 Fixes: #33724 Reviewed-By: Richard Lau <riclau@uk.ibm.com> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <rtrott@gmail.com>
Refs: nodejs#34761 Refs: nodejs#33724 PR-URL: nodejs#34844 Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <info@bnoordhuis.nl> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <joyeec9h3@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com>
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Please describe the problem you are trying to solve.
This feature is not related to a problem.
Describe the solution you'd like
Please describe the desired behavior.
This feature asks for tighter integration with continuous fuzzing via OSS-Fuzz. In this PR google/oss-fuzz#3860 (comment) I integrated NodeJS with fuzzing and so far it was used to capture this bug #33640
However, the current integration could be improved and it would be desirable to cover more of NodeJS with fuzzers, as briefly discussed with @bnoordhuis in the above PR. Specifically, there are two core parts where the integration with OSS-Fuzz can improve: (1) integrating the build procedure with the OSS-Fuzz environment more closely with the NodeJS environment and (2) building more fuzzers.
Regarding part 1 then the current strategy (
build.sh
here https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/pull/3860/files) compiles the NodeJS core in an awkward manner by first runningmake
without any proper OSS-Fuzz flags and then re-comiling the.cc
files ofnode/src
with the proper OSS-Fuzz flags, in order to create a static archive.The OSS-Fuzz environment sets the following environment variables when compiling the fuzzers to something similar to this:
It would be nice if the build process of NodeJS can integrate a fuzzing part which enables us to compile with the OSS-Fuzz variables (
CFLAGS
,CXXFLAGS
andLIB_FUZZING_ENGINE
) above. TheLIB_FUZZING_ENGINE
variable is only used for linking the final fuzzer and should not be used on any of the compiled libraries. Also note that to get the fuzzers compiled properly they should be compiled against static libraries. As I see the desired goal is, therefore, to have the files innode/src
be compiled with theCFLAGS
andCXXFLAGS
variables above.Regarding part 2 then I can certainly start writing more fuzzers and covering more of the NodeJS code, but if you have any suggestions of good APIs for fuzzing then here would be a good place to write I think.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: