fuzz: new target with different config options #9531
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #9531 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 82.19% 82.16% -0.04%
==========================================
Files 968 968
Lines 274203 274231 +28
==========================================
- Hits 225373 225310 -63
- Misses 48830 48921 +91
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
cc @jasonish |
| @@ -500,6 +535,16 @@ int ConfGetBool(const char *name, int *val) | |||
| */ | |||
| int ConfGetChildValueBool(const ConfNode *base, const char *name, int *val) | |||
| { | |||
| #ifdef FUZZING_BUILD_MODE_UNSAFE_FOR_PRODUCTION | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How will this work when all this is done in Rust? Hopefully in the 8.0 cycle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I was cc-ing you to ask you if it will be compatible with the conf+rust changes.
We can have #cfg[fuzz] or something like that (as a way to #ifdef FUZZING_BUILD_MODE_UNSAFE_FOR_PRODUCTION)
But will still SMTP use ConfGetChildValueBool ? (just its implementation will be in rust)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But will still SMTP use
ConfGetChildValueBool? (just its implementation will be in rust)
For the most part. Rust code should be able to use serde to convert raw config to a struct, but that won't work so well for the C.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, should I go on with this work ? Or wait for the conf+rust to start it from there ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I probably wouldn't wait, but might need to come back to you for reworking when the time comes.
|
Replaced by #9567 |
Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/3591
Describe changes:
Draft : expecting feedback if this looks a good approach
Still to do :