Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Fuzz testing with valgrind

[Balint Reczey <balint.reczey@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Evan,

On 07/26/2012 04:44 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Martin Mathieson
> <martin.r.mathieson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Evan Huus<eapache@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > I've been playing around in my head for a while now with the idea of
> > > running fuzz tests under valgrind. I notice the fuzz-test script
> > > already sets a bunch of environment variables for memory checking, so
> > > I'm not sure if valgrind would really add anything.
> > >
> > > How extensive are the memory checks turned on by the fuzz-test script?
> > > Would valgrind be a useful addition, or would it be mostly redundant?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Evan
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure either, but out of the 3 problems reported by valgrind that I
> > just fixed:
> > - 1 was writing outside of allocated data (which the canary checks may have
> > picked up on)
> > - 2 were reading/displaying/branching-based-upon uninitialized data (which I
> > don't expect other types of checks would spot)
> >
> > Martin
>
> Basic support added in revision 44024, so it's there if people want to
> use it. I don't know if it would be worth turning on for the
> build-bot, as it does slow down the check considerably, but it will
> probably catch a few more errors.
I think it is a good idea. Maybe we could have a fuzz-test run with Valgrind 
once a week.
The memory corruption I fixed recently has been identified using Valgrind as well.

Cheers,
Balint

> Evan