-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 264
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
TuneFuzz module testing #1964
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
TuneFuzz module testing #1964
Conversation
It appears this did not trigger exp, let me re-try below. |
Experiment |
/gcbrun run_experiment.py -a --experiment-config /opt/fuzzbench/service/experiment-config.yaml --experiment-name 2024-03-26-tunemodule --fuzzers aflplusplus aflplusplus_sk aflplusplus_sk_brute |
Hi Dongge, could you help us testing the bug benchmark as well? Thanks!
|
/gcbrun run_experiment.py -a --experiment-config /opt/fuzzbench/service/experiment-config.yaml --experiment-name 2024-03-29-tune-bug --fuzzers aflplusplus aflplusplus_sk aflplusplus_sk_brute --benchmarks bloaty_fuzz_target_52948c harfbuzz_hb-shape-fuzzer_17863b libxml2_xml_e85b9b mbedtls_fuzz_dtlsclient_7c6b0e php_php-fuzz-parser_0dbedb |
Experiment |
Hi, we want to test a standalone module of TuneFuzz and its updated version. This module's origin implementation has been merged into AFL++ and we want to compare old AFL++ mode, new AFL++ mode (origin TuneFuzz module implementation) and an optimized implementation.
@DonggeLiu Could you help us evaluate three fuzzers (
aflplusplus
,aflplusplus_sk
andaflplusplus_sk_brute
)? Thanks!