Option to use honggfuzz

[ozgrakkurt]

Hello, thanks for building this project.

Hongfuzz seems to perform really well according to some benchmarks: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10144606/1/Comparing%20Fuzzers%20on%20a%20Level%20Playing%20Field%20with%20FuzzBench.pdf

I wanted to use hongfuzz but this library has much better ergonomics since it integrates into the unit tests mechanism.

I see there is an option to use libfuzzer as the implementation but couldn't find a way to use honggfuzz. Is this possible to do?

Also is there some fuzz tester benchmark that includes fuzztest along with honggfuzz, afl etc. ? Or do you think the bug finding performance difference will be significant between fuzztester and honggfuzz?

[xinhaoyuan]

Hi there,

Technically you should be able to use the compatibility mode, which allows fuzz tests to run with libFuzzer, with honggfuzz too, because they use the same LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput interface (https://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html#fuzz-target). But we don't recommend compatibility mode because it lacks certain FuzzTest features (e.g. seed inputs), and it cannot use the full power of fuzzing engines due to the fundamental limitation of the legacy LLVMFuzzer interface: For example, auto-dictionary is not supported.

Also is there some fuzz tester benchmark that includes fuzztest along with honggfuzz, afl etc. ?

Internally we are benchmarking FuzzTest together with libFuzzer and other engines, and we are actively improving FuzzTest based on the results. We may release it once result is stable.