News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AFLFast vs. Erlang by jlouis on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @04:18AM (#12350533)
I hope we can get this to run much faster than a few executions per second. Having a way to speed this up could greatly help eliminate errors in the Erlang VM.

The OTP team is usually pretty good at working with tooling for correctness around the VM, so I would think this isn't too hard to get going.

Re:AFLFast vs. Erlang by mononcqc on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @07:24AM (#12351193)
Wondering if using erlang:halt() rather than init:stop(0) would be better since halt(0) shuts down the VM instantly while init:stop(0) takes time to take down the entire supervision trees in the VM in proper order.
Re:AFLFast vs. Erlang by jlouis on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @09:13AM (#12351734)
When I quickchecked maps, my approach was to use the distribution feature to run the maps code itself on another VM and trying for force it into a crashing state. This avoids having to restart the VM all the time.

AFL fuzz is severely limited if you need to boot up the VM, then run a program, then stop the VM again. It is rarely that part you want to test.

Perhaps we can strike middle-ground. Rip out the ETERM encoder/decoder to binary data and fuzz that. It should be a far simpler target.