Re: [PATCH VERY RFC 3/5] tools/fuzz: introduce x86 instruction emulator target

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:03:04AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.12.16 at 14:54, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > Instruction emulator fuzzing code is from code previous written by
> > Andrew and George. Adapted to llvm fuzzer and hook up the build system.
> 
> With this, how much of the new code could be shared between
> Google's fuzzer and AFL, for which George had put this together
> originally afaik? Or are we now no longer planning on having an
> AFL target?
> 
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/Makefile
> > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> > +XEN_ROOT=$(CURDIR)/../../..
> > +include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk
> > +
> > +x86-instruction-emulator-fuzzer-all: x86-insn-emulator.a x86-insn-emulator-fuzzer.o
> > +
> > +x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c x86_emulate/x86_emulate.h:
> > +	[ -L x86_emulate ] || ln -sf $(XEN_ROOT)/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate .
> > +
> > +x86_emulate.c:
> > +	[ -L x86_emulate.c ] || ln -sf $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/tests/x86_emulator/x86_emulate.c
> > +
> > +x86_emulate.h:
> > +	[ -L x86_emulate.h ] || ln -sf $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/tests/x86_emulator/x86_emulate.h
> 
> I think these two could easily be a single (pattern) rule, with (slightly
> unusually) the file extension being the stem.

I think it is better to have them explicitly spelled out, because using
something like

x86_emulate.%:
	[ -L x86_emulate.$* ] || ln -sf $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/tests/x86_emulator/x86_emulate.$*

would cause the x86_emulate.o compiled in tools/tests/x86_emulator be
linked here, too, due to another rule we have:

x86_emulate.o: x86_emulate.c x86_emulate.h x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c x86_emulate/x86_emulate.h 

Please let me know if you have some other ideas to deal with this.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel