Re: [PATCH-for-5.1 2/2] fuzz: add missing header for rcu_enable_atfork

[Alexander Bulekov <alxndr@bu.edu>]

On 200709 0718, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 08/07/2020 22.01, Alexander Bulekov wrote:
> > In 45222b9a90, I fixed a broken check for rcu_enable_atfork introduced
> > in d6919e4cb6. I added a call to rcu_enable_atfork after the
> > call to qemu_init in fuzz.c, but forgot to include the corresponding
> > header, breaking --enable-fuzzing --enable-werror builds.
> > 
> > Fixes: 45222b9a90 ("fuzz: fix broken qtest check at rcu_disable_atfork")
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Bulekov <alxndr@bu.edu>
> > ---
> >  tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c b/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c
> > index a36d9038e0..0b66e43409 100644
> > --- a/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/fuzz/fuzz.c
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> >  #include "sysemu/runstate.h"
> >  #include "sysemu/sysemu.h"
> >  #include "qemu/main-loop.h"
> > +#include "qemu/rcu.h"
> >  #include "tests/qtest/libqtest.h"
> >  #include "tests/qtest/libqos/qgraph.h"
> >  #include "fuzz.h"
> 
> D'oh, mea culpa, I also apparently did not properly compile test that
> patch :-( I think we need a CI job that at least compile tests the
> fuzzing code - I can look into that once Alex Bennée's current testing
> pull request has been merged.

My bad - I should have done a clean build with a version of clang
that doesn't require me to -disable-werror

> Alexander, is there also a way to run a fuzzer just for some few
> minutes? E.g. a fuzzing test that finishes quickly, or an option to
> limit the time that a test is running? If so, we could also add that
> quick test to the CI pipeline, to make sure that the fuzzer code does
> not only compile, but is also able to run (at least a little bit).

Yes. I think the sequence could look something like:
CC=clang CXX=clang++ ../configure --enable-fuzzing --enable-sanitizers \
             --enable-werror
make i386-softmmu/fuzz
./i386-softmmu/qemu-fuzz-i386 --fuzz-target=i440fx-qtest-reboot-fuzz -runs=5000

This will run the i440fx fuzzer over 5000 inputs which should finish in
a second or so. I don't expect it to actually find any crashes in the
i440fx in such a short period, so, ideally, all errors would be
fuzzer-related.

Where can I get started with building out a CI job for this?

One aside: running this right now, QEMU exits and AddressSanitizer
complains about some leaks. There is a patch in Paolo's PR that should
fix this, but I was surprised that existing CI tests didn't catch it. Is
leak detection usually disabled in CI?

> For this patch here:
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>

Thanks!
-Alex