Re: [PATCH 04/10] fuzz/generic-fuzz: add a limit on DMA bytes written

[Alexander Bulekov <alxndr@bu.edu>]

On 230213 1438, Darren Kenny wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On Saturday, 2023-02-04 at 23:29:45 -05, Alexander Bulekov wrote:
> > As we have repplaced fork-based fuzzing, with reboots - we can no longer
> > use a timeout+exit() to avoid slow inputs. Libfuzzer has its own timer
> > that it uses to catch slow inputs, however these timeouts are usually
> > seconds-minutes long: more than enough to bog-down the fuzzing process.
> > However, I found that slow inputs often attempt to fill overly large DMA
> > requests. Thus, we can mitigate most timeouts by setting a cap on the
> > total number of DMA bytes written by an input.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Bulekov <alxndr@bu.edu>
> > ---
> >  tests/qtest/fuzz/generic_fuzz.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/fuzz/generic_fuzz.c b/tests/qtest/fuzz/generic_fuzz.c
> > index c2e5642150..eab92cbc23 100644
> > --- a/tests/qtest/fuzz/generic_fuzz.c
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/fuzz/generic_fuzz.c
> > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ enum cmds {
> >  #define USEC_IN_SEC 1000000000
> >  
> >  #define MAX_DMA_FILL_SIZE 0x10000
> > +#define MAX_TOTAL_DMA_SIZE 0x10000000
> >  
> >  #define PCI_HOST_BRIDGE_CFG 0xcf8
> >  #define PCI_HOST_BRIDGE_DATA 0xcfc
> > @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ typedef struct {
> >  static useconds_t timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT_US;
> >  
> >  static bool qtest_log_enabled;
> > +size_t dma_bytes_written;
> >  
> >  MemoryRegion *sparse_mem_mr;
> >  
> > @@ -197,6 +199,7 @@ void fuzz_dma_read_cb(size_t addr, size_t len, MemoryRegion *mr)
> >       */
> >      if (dma_patterns->len == 0
> >          || len == 0
> > +        || dma_bytes_written > MAX_TOTAL_DMA_SIZE
> 
> NIT: Just wondering if you should check dma_bytes_written + l as opposed
>      to dma_bytes_written? It's probably not important enough given it's
>      just an artificial limit, but thought I'd ask.
>

Done :)

> >          || (mr != current_machine->ram && mr != sparse_mem_mr)) {
> >          return;
> >      }
> > @@ -269,6 +272,7 @@ void fuzz_dma_read_cb(size_t addr, size_t len, MemoryRegion *mr)
> >                  fflush(stderr);
> >              }
> >              qtest_memwrite(qts_global, addr, buf, l);
> > +            dma_bytes_written += l;
> >          }
> >          len -= l;
> >          buf += l;
> > @@ -648,6 +652,7 @@ static void generic_fuzz(QTestState *s, const unsigned char *Data, size_t Size)
> >  
> >      op_clear_dma_patterns(s, NULL, 0);
> >      pci_disabled = false;
> > +    dma_bytes_written = 0;
> >  
> >      QPCIBus *pcibus = qpci_new_pc(s, NULL);
> >      g_ptr_array_foreach(fuzzable_pci_devices, pci_enum, pcibus);
> > -- 
> > 2.39.0
> 
> While this will still consume the existing corpus, is it likely to
> cause these existing corpus to be trimmed?

Not sure - It would affect inputs that generate a lot of DMA
activity (though those should have been caught by our previous timeout
mechanism).

> 
> Otherwise, the changes look good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Darren Kenny <darren.kenny@oracle.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Darren.