Chromium Code Reviews
|
|
Chromium Code Reviews
Issue
2000173002:
If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. (Closed)
|
Created:
4 years, 7 months ago by katrielc1 Modified:
4 years, 7 months ago CC:
webrtc-reviews_webrtc.org, tterriberry_mozilla.com, qiang.lu, niklas.enbom, yujie_mao (webrtc), peah-webrtc Base URL:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/webrtc.git@master Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master Project:
webrtc Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionIf building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE.
This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves
more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always
succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag.
BUG=chromium:561667
Committed: https://crrev.com/bf81d68a426d6c2378ad21d042de491a8458a4e1
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12904}
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 2
Patch Set 2 : Comment on use location #Messages
Total messages: 24 (8 generated)
katrielc@chromium.org changed reviewers: + katrielc@chromium.org, kjellander@webrtc.org, pbos@webrtc.org
On 2016/05/23 14:37:04, katrielc wrote: Separately, this can be used to fix the logging-in-Chromium problem relatively simply; I have a Chromium CL out for that.
Can you please add a BUG=webrtc:N reference to a WebRTC issue number N that briefly explains what you're working on here? It'll be a good way to track progress over time and allows for developers to follow along. Also provide a link to the Chromium CL in the description.
Do you need this define? It'd only be invoked in Chromium builds so far, so it could be contained in webrtc overrides, right?
On 2016/05/23 21:56:01, pbos-webrtc wrote: > Do you need this define? It'd only be invoked in Chromium builds so far, so it > could be contained in webrtc overrides, right? E.g. add when/if there's an actual need in standalone webrtc, I think.
On 2016/05/23 21:56:24, pbos-webrtc wrote: > On 2016/05/23 21:56:01, pbos-webrtc wrote: > > Do you need this define? It'd only be invoked in Chromium builds so far, so it > > could be contained in webrtc overrides, right? > > E.g. add when/if there's an actual need in standalone webrtc, I think. The overrides don't have a BUILD.gn, so do you mean add it to the Chromium build files? That seems overkill given that it's webrtc-only.
lgtm https://codereview.webrtc.org/2000173002/diff/1/webrtc/BUILD.gn File webrtc/BUILD.gn (right): https://codereview.webrtc.org/2000173002/diff/1/webrtc/BUILD.gn#newcode174 webrtc/BUILD.gn:174: defines += [ "WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE" ] Add a comment here to say where it's used (and why) since it's not currently in this codebase but rather chromium.
Description was changed from ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG= ========== to ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG=chromium:561667 ==========
https://codereview.webrtc.org/2000173002/diff/1/webrtc/BUILD.gn File webrtc/BUILD.gn (right): https://codereview.webrtc.org/2000173002/diff/1/webrtc/BUILD.gn#newcode174 webrtc/BUILD.gn:174: defines += [ "WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE" ] On 2016/05/24 12:54:55, pbos-webrtc wrote: > Add a comment here to say where it's used (and why) since it's not currently in > this codebase but rather chromium. Done.
The CQ bit was checked by katrielc@chromium.org
The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from pbos@webrtc.org Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2000173002/#ps20001 (title: "Comment on use location")
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2000173002/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2000173002/20001
The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org
Try jobs failed on following builders: presubmit on tryserver.webrtc (JOB_FAILED, http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.webrtc/builders/presubmit/builds/5861)
lgtm
For changes like this that doesn't affect any tests, please just submit manually after running a few trybots manually (some of the ones with compile in the name should be sufficient).
On 2016/05/26 07:16:37, kjellander (webrtc) wrote: > For changes like this that doesn't affect any tests, please just submit manually > after running a few trybots manually (some of the ones with compile in the name > should be sufficient). (if we send all CLs like this to the CQ we end up with large queues, which has happened a lot recently)
The CQ bit was checked by kjellander@webrtc.org
CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/2000173002/20001 View timeline at https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/2000173002/20001
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG=chromium:561667 ========== to ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG=chromium:561667 ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Description was changed from ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG=chromium:561667 ========== to ========== If building a fuzzer, define WEBRTC_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE. This is useful because various pieces of code can then make themselves more fuzzer-friendly. (For example, checksum verification can always succeed.) See BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE for an analogous flag. BUG=chromium:561667 Committed: https://crrev.com/bf81d68a426d6c2378ad21d042de491a8458a4e1 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12904} ==========
Message was sent while issue was closed.
Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as https://crrev.com/bf81d68a426d6c2378ad21d042de491a8458a4e1 Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#12904} |
