Bug#1034087: afl++: Include afl-clang-lto(++) in package
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:15:15PM +0700, Arnaud Rebillout wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 13:47:19 +0200 =?utf-8?q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= > wrote: > > > Package: afl++ > > Version: 4.04c-3 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Hello, > > > > the AFL++ documentation recommends using afl-clang-lto(++) if possible[1]. > > > > Based on local tests, "PREFIX=/usr make" will produce an afl-clang-lto > > binary, if lld-14 is also installed (which should be the case, according > > to debian/rules). Not sure what's missing from the Debian package in > > order to get afl-clang-lto. > > > > Best regards, > > jn > > > > > > [1]: > > https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/docs/fuzzing_in_depth.md#1-instrumenting-the-target > > > at this point it seems that afl-clang-lto(++) are parts of the package: > > $ apt show afl++ | grep ^Version: > Version: 4.09c-1+b1 > > $ apt-file show afl++ | grep bin/afl-clang-lto > afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto > afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto++ > > Can we close this bug report then? Or did I misunderstand the bug report? Sounds good. Thanks for looking into this, -jn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1034087: afl++: Include afl-clang-lto(++) in package
Hello, On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 13:47:19 +0200 =?utf-8?q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= wrote: > Package: afl++ > Version: 4.04c-3 > Severity: wishlist > > Hello, > > the AFL++ documentation recommends using afl-clang-lto(++) if possible[1]. > > Based on local tests, "PREFIX=/usr make" will produce an afl-clang-lto > binary, if lld-14 is also installed (which should be the case, according > to debian/rules). Not sure what's missing from the Debian package in > order to get afl-clang-lto. > > Best regards, > jn > > > [1]: https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/docs/fuzzing_in_depth.md#1-instrumenting-the-target at this point it seems that afl-clang-lto(++) are parts of the package: $ apt show afl++ | grep ^Version: Version: 4.09c-1+b1 $ apt-file show afl++ | grep bin/afl-clang-lto afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto++ Can we close this bug report then? Or did I misunderstand the bug report? Best, Arnaud
Bug#1034087:
Hello sir
Bug#1034087: afl++: Include afl-clang-lto(++) in package
Package: afl++ Version: 4.04c-3 Severity: wishlist Hello, the AFL++ documentation recommends using afl-clang-lto(++) if possible[1]. Based on local tests, "PREFIX=/usr make" will produce an afl-clang-lto binary, if lld-14 is also installed (which should be the case, according to debian/rules). Not sure what's missing from the Debian package in order to get afl-clang-lto. Best regards, jn [1]: https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/docs/fuzzing_in_depth.md#1-instrumenting-the-target -- System Information: Debian Release: 12.0 APT prefers testing-security APT policy: (500, 'testing-security'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-7-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages afl++ depends on: ii build-essential 12.9 ii clang1:14.0-55.6 ii clang-14 1:14.0.6-12 ii libc62.36-8 ii libgcc-s112.2.0-14 ii libpython3.113.11.2-6 ii libstdc++6 12.2.0-14 ii procps 2:4.0.2-3 Versions of packages afl++ recommends: ii afl++-doc 4.04c-3 Versions of packages afl++ suggests: pn gnuplot -- no debconf information
