Revert “ci: Run fuzzer task for the master branch only” #24292

1. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 7:28 pm on February 8, 2022: member

   This reverts commit 5a9e255e5a324e7aa0b63a9634aa3cfda9a300bd.

   I think we should attempt to maintain the fuzz tasks for release branches as well.

   If it is too difficult for one branch, it could make sense to disable it for that branch, but not for all branches unconditionally.

   Also, bump to jammy.

2. Revert "ci: Run fuzzer task for the master branch only"

   This reverts commit 5a9e255e5a324e7aa0b63a9634aa3cfda9a300bd.

   fab8cd5f87
3. ci: Bump fuzz tasks to jammy

   This gives them a newer clang version, which may have more sanitizers
   available.

   fa27745ccb
4. DrahtBot added the label Tests on Feb 8, 2022
5. 
   laanwj commented at 1:47 pm on February 10, 2022: member

   I remember part of the original reasoning to disable it for branches was that the corpus is generated for master, and release branches might differ enough for it to run into problems. Is this resolved?
6. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 2:10 pm on February 10, 2022: member

   Fuzz inputs are literally untrusted, arbitrary data. The goal of fuzzing is to harden the code base. I think this is especially important for release branches, since releases are built from them. If the fuzz tests on a release branch fail, I think it should be investigated, not suppressed upfront so that we don’t even learn about the issue.
7. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 4:35 pm on February 11, 2022: member

   And about the fuzz inputs only being generated for one branch: In fact they are only generated for one commit. Any further commit or code change may render them (or parts of them) “invalid”. I don’t think we can maintain all fuzz inputs for every commit, at least I won’t do that and I don’t think it is necessary.

   My point is that we should investigate any issue that comes up, not completely disable the fuzz test (not even trying to compile them).

   I think, on a case-by-case basis, where it makes sense, we could checkout a specific commit of the qa-assets repo. Or alternatively discard it completely, so that at least compilation is tested. However, finding the appropriate solution can be done when there is a problem.

8. MarcoFalke added this to the milestone 23.0 on Feb 14, 2022
9. 
   MarcoFalke commented at 9:11 am on February 14, 2022: member

   Assigned 23.0
10. 
    laanwj commented at 1:52 pm on February 14, 2022: member

    It’s ok with me as long as it doesn’t cause too many false positives, that everyone is going to ignore anyway at some point.
11. 
    MarcoFalke commented at 3:17 pm on February 14, 2022: member

    If there is any fuzz issue, feel free to create an issue and ping me if needed.
12. fanquake approved
13. 
    fanquake commented at 1:12 pm on February 21, 2022: member

    ACK fa27745ccbdf8df7949a2e79dba18de49dc89169 - we’ll see how we go with the 23.x release branch.
14. fanquake merged this on Feb 21, 2022
15. fanquake closed this on Feb 21, 2022

    ---

16. MarcoFalke deleted the branch on Feb 21, 2022
17. sidhujag referenced this in commit 59a50a16f5 on Feb 22, 2022
18. sidhujag referenced this in commit 978bfebe11 on Feb 22, 2022
19. DrahtBot locked this on Feb 21, 2023

Contributors
MarcoFalke laanwj fanquake

Labels
Tests

Milestone
23.0