On 11/01/19 16:04, Max Moroz wrote: > We usually have a single fuzzing process, it starts with a fuzzing > engine's main function and is calling LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput with > various inputs and keep mutating them based on the coverage feedback. > Running a second process which you don't care too much about might be > fine, but the fuzzing process should be "replacing" or should I say > "imitating" the process whose coverage you're interested in.
What do you mean by replacing or imitating? Avoiding fork would probably be hard. I'm mostly afraid that some state guest state is not resetted properly across runs, and this would result in non-reproducible crashes. It seems to me that the task can be approached with AFL and a test case postprocessor to generate the qtest input; however, my knowledge of libFuzzer is very very limited. Paolo
