Right, understood.
And if I'd actually carefully read the bug comments fuzzbot submits, I would
have noticed the './tshark -nVxr' at the bottom of them. :)
-hadriel
On Mar 22, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kap...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <hadriel.kap...@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How long does the clang code analysis buldbot
>>>
>>> You mean the "beat the living hell out of Wireshark to look for bugs in
>>> many different ways" buildbot? :-)
>>
>> What does it actually *do*?
>
> The partial list in my previous message said:
>
> scan-build, running the Clang static analyzer;
>
> cov-build, building to prepare to hand Wireshark off to Coverity;
>
> fuzz-menagerie, repeatedly running fuzzed capture files through TShark
> to make sure it doesn't crash.
>
> There's also a phase in which it runs capture files with random data
> ("random" in the sense of "generated by a pseudo-random number generator")
> through TShark as well.
>
>> It looks like some of the crash bugs it submits are GUI-specific
>
> Unlikely, given that it's testing TShark, not Wireshark, with the fuzzed
> captures. See tools/fuzz-test.sh.
>
>> and only occur way down the packet list, so presumably it actually loads the
>> fuzzed files in wireshark
>
> Nope. It really does run them through TShark; where has the buildbot filed a
> bug in which *Wireshark* crashed?
>
>> Does it also try some of the graphs/analyzers?
>
> No, it doesn't test any of the Wireshark GUI.
>
>> I ask because I can't repo a crash with bug 9887 by just viewing it,
>
> Perhaps:
>
> 1) for some unknown reason, it crashes on Ubuntu (64-bit x86) but not
> OS X (64-bit x86 in your case, as you are, as I remember, running a recent OS
> X version);
>
> 2) you have different preferences set (I think the buildbot has an
> empty set of preferences, so the defaults are used);
>
> 3) perhaps, for some reason, it crashes in TShark but doesn't crash in
> Wireshark - for example, if you don't have any color filters set and don't
> have a display filter, the path where it reads in the capture doesn't
> generate a protocol tree, but I think the TShark test generates a protocol
> tree.
>
>> but if I select Telephony->Voip Calls... boom goes the dynamite.
>
> That might be a separate bug.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
