fuzz: set whitelist permissions on connman target #34742

pull brunoerg wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from brunoerg:2026-03-connman changing 1 files +12 −0

brunoerg commented at 12:49 PM on March 5, 2026: contributor

I noticed that AddWhitelistPermissionFlags was always being called with an empty ranges (whitelist permissions). This function is called when connecting to a node (ConnectNode), and if the connection is a manual one, it uses the vWhitelistedRangeOutgoing to populate the permissions. However, since we were not setting any whitelist permission on the target, this vector is always empty. This PR improves this target by populating both vWhitelistedRangeIncoming and vWhitelistedRangeOutgoing.
fuzz: set whitelist permissions on connman target 32debfa1ed
DrahtBot added the label Fuzzing on Mar 5, 2026
DrahtBot commented at 12:49 PM on March 5, 2026: contributor



The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.



Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers

ACK Crypt-iQ, frankomosh, maflcko

If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <code></code> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	Crypt-iQ, frankomosh, maflcko

in src/test/fuzz/connman.cpp:86 in 32debfa1ed

  78 | @@ -79,6 +79,18 @@ FUZZ_TARGET(connman, .init = initialize_connman)
  79 |      CConnman::Options options;
  80 |      options.m_msgproc = &net_events;
  81 |      options.nMaxOutboundLimit = max_outbound_limit;
  82 | +
  83 | +    auto consume_whitelist = [&]() {
  84 | +        std::vector<NetWhitelistPermissions> result(fuzzed_data_provider.ConsumeIntegralInRange<size_t>(0, 3));
  85 | +        for (auto& entry : result) {
  86 | +            entry.m_flags = ConsumeWeakEnum(fuzzed_data_provider, ALL_NET_PERMISSION_FLAGS);

frankomosh commented at 7:35 AM on March 10, 2026:

nit: Should this exclude Implicit? I think TryParsePermissionFlags never produces it with other flags.

brunoerg commented at 1:38 PM on March 10, 2026:

I think Implicit would be considered as if both -whitebind or -whitelist had not been defined, perhaps we can leave it as is.

frankomosh commented at 5:57 AM on March 18, 2026:

fair enough, makes sense to leave it.

frankomosh commented at 7:36 AM on March 10, 2026: contributor

Concept ACK
Crypt-iQ commented at 7:59 PM on March 17, 2026: contributor

utACK 32debfa1ed8168bca0b6d2f191d2e3e940f6029b
DrahtBot requested review from frankomosh on Mar 17, 2026
frankomosh commented at 5:58 AM on March 18, 2026: contributor

crACK 32debfa1ed8168bca0b6d2f191d2e3e940f6029b
maflcko commented at 7:55 AM on March 18, 2026: member

lgtm ACK 32debfa1ed8168bca0b6d2f191d2e3e940f6029b

I think it would be useful to include steps to test this. E.g. by showcasing one additional line of coverage that is achieved, where is previously wasn't.
fanquake merged this on Mar 18, 2026
fanquake closed this on Mar 18, 2026
brunoerg deleted the branch on Mar 18, 2026

Contributors

Labels

fuzz: set whitelist permissions on connman target #34742

Reviews