fuzz: More accurate coverage reports #30156
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. |
Contributor
|
Concept ACK |
maflcko
reviewed
May 23, 2024
dergoegge
force-pushed
the
2024-05-cov-reset-counters
branch
from
dc8c30b to
52506a0
Compare
Member
|
Concept ACK on improving coverage. |
Contributor
|
Concept ACK |
Contributor
|
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure. |
Contributor
|
Concept ACK 52506a0 Made a clean build of this change using Running fuzz tests twice(master: f157785) (dergoegge:2024-05-cov-reset-counters: 52506a0) |
Member
|
concept ACK |
dergoegge
force-pushed
the
2024-05-cov-reset-counters
branch
from
52506a0 to
949abeb
Compare
dergoegge
commented
May 23, 2024
Member
Author
|
The difference only really becomes visible for individual coverage reports, e.g. for process_messages. |
Member
|
utACK 949abeb |
Member
Member
Author
|
As an example for the minisketch harness, files reported as reached by the fuzzer: master: pull: |
brunoerg
approved these changes
May 24, 2024
Member
Author
|
rfm? |
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2025
949abeb [fuzz] Avoid collecting initialization coverage (dergoegge) Pull request description: Our coverage reports include coverage of initialization code, which can be misleading when trying to evaluate the coverage a fuzz harness achieves through fuzzing alone. This PR proposes to make fuzz coverage reports more accurate by resetting coverage counters after initialization code has been run. This makes it easier to evaluate which code was actually reached through fuzzing (e.g. to spot fuzz blockers). ACKs for top commit: maflcko: utACK 949abeb brunoerg: nice, utACK 949abeb Tree-SHA512: c8579bda4f3d71d199b9331fbe6316fce375a906743d0bc216bb94958dc03fdc9a951ea50cfeb487494a75668ae3c16471a82f7e5fdd912d781dc29d063e2c5b
PastaPastaPasta
added a commit
to dashpay/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2025
1e04c56 Merge bitcoin#30556: doc: multisig-tutorial: remove obsolete mention and link to closed PR (merge-script) fd43510 Merge bitcoin#30453: test: Non-Shy version sender (glozow) e3c3a11 Merge bitcoin#30327: build: Drop redundant `sys/sysctl.h` header check (merge-script) 808a77d Merge bitcoin#30156: fuzz: More accurate coverage reports (merge-script) 3ca42ba Merge bitcoin#28874: doc: fixup help output for -upnp and -natpmp (merge-script) ea32090 Merge bitcoin#28461: build: Windows SSP roundup (fanquake) e71c422 Merge bitcoin#28151: build: use `-muse-unaligned-vector-move` for Windows builds (fanquake) 077bbb4 Merge bitcoin#28131: test: Add UBSan `-fsanitize=integer` suppressions for `src/secp256k1` subtree (fanquake) de5a2d1 Merge bitcoin#27940: test: Add implicit-signed-integer-truncation:*/include/c++/ suppression (fanquake) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented Batch of trivial backports ## How Has This Been Tested? Built locally ## Breaking Changes ## Checklist: _Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._ - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: UdjinM6: utACK 1e04c56 knst: utACK 1e04c56 Tree-SHA512: 5e9a3fc4ac2ea06e8da48952bbdb43e7ed0c3d9ab3fdae3d8753bbe10b957c6cbb06e01b9860db4cd5ade91c8cd419dbbc8ee76073d00b4d6ff0f6ae6a4cbfd2
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
10 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Our coverage reports include coverage of initialization code, which can be misleading when trying to evaluate the coverage a fuzz harness achieves through fuzzing alone.
This PR proposes to make fuzz coverage reports more accurate by resetting coverage counters after initialization code has been run. This makes it easier to evaluate which code was actually reached through fuzzing (e.g. to spot fuzz blockers).