Skip to content
New issue

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

[fuzzbench] Added Command-Line Argument for Fuzzing Engine Selection in FuzzBench Integration #12711

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Shivam7-1
Copy link
Contributor

About PR:
This PR introduces a command-line argument to specify the fuzzing engine in fuzzbench, replacing the hard-coded value for enhanced flexibility and usability. This enhancement supports seamless integration of new fuzzing engines.

The modification aims to improve the fuzzbench script's adaptability and enable potential performance advancements by allowing users to define the fuzzing engine directly.

@Shivam7-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hii @jonathanmetzman
Could You Please Review This PR
Thanks

@jonathanmetzman
Copy link
Contributor

Could you explain why this is useful? Are you using this and need this feature?

@Shivam7-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hii @jonathanmetzman Thanks For Reviewing
This change is based on a TODO in the original code, which suggests making the fuzzing engine selection a command-line argument rather than a hard-coded value. Implementing this change provides greater flexibility, as it allows users to specify different fuzzing engines without needing to modify the code directly. This is especially useful for testing and benchmarking multiple fuzzing engines within the FuzzBench framework, potentially optimizing results or enabling new fuzzing strategies.

By making this feature a command-line argument, this update also makes fuzzbench easier to integrate with continuous integration (CI) setups and other automated environments, as it reduces the need for custom code modifications each time a different fuzzing engine is required.

Thanks

@Shivam7-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hii @jonathanmetzman
Is there Anything Else is Required From My Side?
Do required any other information?
Thanks

@jonathanmetzman
Copy link
Contributor

jonathanmetzman commented Nov 19, 2024

Thanks for the PR.
I don't think I will merge this. This feature isn't really supported and I don't want to add code that people wont use.
Sorry.

@Shivam7-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hii @jonathanmetzman
Thanks For Reviewing
But in the Original Code it is TODO task which is commented
So I think it would be pending task?
And Contribute Accordingly
Regards

@jonathanmetzman
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry. I'm not going to merge this now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants