On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jeff Morriss
<jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Evan Huus wrote:
>>
>> They've been on my to-do list for a while, as emem provides them.
>>
>> However, I've never personally used emem's canaries, and I've never
>> actually heard of or seen anyone else using them. Are they actually
>> useful anymore, or has Moore's law made valgrind the better tool in
>> all situations?
>
>
> Well, the canaries have helped us find (and fix) a *lot* of bugs over the
> years. I have this vague memory of a time when most of the fuzz failures
> complained of canary corruption but maybe that's an exaggeration. Hopefully
> the lack of canary corruption these days is a sign of improvement. :-)
>
> I think they're still useful for the automated fuzz testing because we get a
> fuzz failure when the fuzz-bot finds a corrupted canary. Valgrind is useful
> to let us humans *find* the memory corruption, but unless we're at a point
> where the fuzz-bot can run Valgrind instead of its normal testing, I don't
> think we should give up the canaries.
fuzz-test.sh has a -g flag that does exactly this. Is it possible to
enable that flag on the fuzz-bot or would that kill performance too
much?
>> If we do believe they're still useful, now's the time to suggest cool
>> new features for them etc. Would they be used more if could be enabled
>> with an environment variable instead of a compile flag? Are the
>> mprotected pages actually useful, or are 99% of things caught by the
>> simpler canaries?
>
>
> There are environment variables to enable/disable the canaries: that's what
> allows the Valgrind script to actually work. :-)
>
> I don't know about the protected pages bit...
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
