We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
--timeout
--timeout <TIMEOUT> Number of milliseconds to consider a hang when fuzzing or replaying (equivalent to -- -t <TIMEOUT> when fuzzing)
AFLplusplus's -V option uses seconds, as do libfuzzer's --timeout and --max_total_time options, and it's hard to keep the distinction.
-V
--max_total_time
Also, the extra granularity probably isn't necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello, I am rust beginner. And I think I found the change i need to make to fix this issue. So can you please assign this issue to me ?
I have to just change
- Duration::from_millies + Duration::from_secs
and also some changes where i need to change from 1000 to 1 because of conversion from millisecs to secs.
Sorry, something went wrong.
@dhruvdabhi101 Thanks very much for your interest. I've assigned the issue to you.
One other location that I want to call out as needing to change is this one:
test-fuzz/cargo-test-fuzz/src/lib.rs
Line 945 in 49843b3
Incidentally, I think there is a bug there. 😬 afl-fuzz expects its -t argument to be in milliseconds, not nanos:
afl-fuzz
-t
-t msec - timeout for each run (auto-scaled, default 1000 ms). Add a '+'
So I think that line should probably be:
args.extend(["-t".to_owned(), format!("{}", timeout)]);
But following your changes, it will be something like:
args.extend(["-t".to_owned(), format!("{}", timeout * MILLIS_PER_SEC)]);
dhruvdabhi101
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
AFLplusplus's
-V
option uses seconds, as do libfuzzer's--timeout
and--max_total_time
options, and it's hard to keep the distinction.Also, the extra granularity probably isn't necessary.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: