On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What's the issue with file I/O? If you can help me understand why you >> want to get rid of it, maybe I can suggest what to do instead. >> > > The file IO takes more time than direct access to memory. > Even if the actual IO happens on tmpfs, this is still slower, because the > accesses to the data require syscalls. > using fmemopen instead of fopen in the fuzz target > (LLVMFuzzerTestOneInput()) should reduce the overhead. > I take my words about fmemopen back -- it's nearly as slow as the real file IO. ( > > --kcc > > >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:24:29PM +0200, Bhargava Shastry wrote: >> > An update from my side. I have written a small test case for catching >> > CVE-2016-2074 here [1]. KCC strongly encourages me to get rid of file >> > I/O based APIs such as ovs_pcap_read() and so on. So, my question to >> > dev@OVS is: Any suggestions how I can do this? Right now, the test runs >> > but is relatively slow. I haven't really benchmarked it so I can't >> > provide hard numbers. >> > >> > [1]: >> > https://github.com/bshastry/fuzzer-test-suite/blob/master/op >> envswitch-2.3.2/target.c >> > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
