jonathanmetzman
jonathanmetzman
I think that experiment had the same error as https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/issues/9151 let me fix it.
Closing this since as far as i can tell this is a duplicate of https://github.com/google/fuzzbench/pull/1679 Please reply to my questions there.
> > Is there a paper or writeup somewhere discussing ddisasm? > > [Ddisasm](https://github.com/GrammaTech/ddisasm) allows binary-only fuzzing by enabling static rewriting of binaries. It was originally described here https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity20/presentation/flores-montoya >...
Are we deleting much more than is needed here? For example, wingfuzz doesn't need to be modified? https://github.com/google/fuzzbench/pull/1568
> I thought the convention is `_`? Happy to change this, though, as the current names can be confusing when project/binary names have `_`. It is the convention but some...
What is going on here? This has revealed that our commit checking out is really really broken
> What is going on here? This has revealed that our commit checking out is really really broken By that, i mean our benchmarks are broken and this bug was...
>We should do that on bug-based ones only. Maybe some recent commit changed that? I don't recall seeing this error in the past. I think the correct thing is to...
> > We should do that on bug-based ones only. Maybe some recent commit changed that? I don't recall seeing this error in the past. > > I think the...