On 25.06.2024 14:39, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 7:40 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 25.06.2024 13:15, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:17 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 21.06.2024 21:14, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/scripts/oss-fuzz/build.sh >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ >>>>> +#!/bin/bash -eu >>>>> +# Copyright 2024 Google LLC >>>>> +# >>>>> +# Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); >>>>> +# you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. >>>>> +# You may obtain a copy of the License at >>>>> +# >>>>> +# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >>>>> +# >>>>> +# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software >>>>> +# distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, >>>>> +# WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or >>>>> implied. >>>>> +# See the License for the specific language governing permissions and >>>>> +# limitations under the License. >>>>> +# >>>>> +################################################################################ >>>> >>>> I'm a little concerned here, but maybe I shouldn't be. According to what >>>> I'm reading, the Apache 2.0 license is at least not entirely compatible >>>> with GPLv2. While apparently the issue is solely with linking in Apache- >>>> licensed code, I wonder whether us not having a respective file under >>>> ./LICENSES/ (and no pre-cooked SPDX identifier to use) actually has a >>>> reason possibly excluding the use of such code in the project. >>>> >>>>> +cd xen >>>>> +./configure clang=y --disable-stubdom --disable-pvshim --disable-docs >>>>> --disable-xen >>>>> +make clang=y -C tools/include >>>>> +make clang=y -C tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator libfuzzer-harness >>>>> +cp tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/libfuzzer-harness >>>>> $OUT/x86_instruction_emulator >>>> >>>> In addition to what Julien said, I further think that filename / directory >>>> name are too generic for a file with this pretty specific contents. >>> >>> I don't really get your concern here? >> >> The thing that is built is specifically a x86 emulator piece of fuzzing >> binary. Neither the directory name nor the file name contain either x86 >> or (at least) emul. > > Because this build script is not necessarily restricted to build only > this one harness in the future. Right now that's the only one that has > a suitable libfuzzer harness, but the reason this build script is here > is to be easily able to add additional fuzzing binaries without the > need to open PRs on the oss-fuzz repo, which as I understand no one > was willing to do in the xen community due to the CLA. Now that the > integration is going to be in oss-fuzz, the only thing you have to do > in the future is add more stuff to this script to get fuzzed. Anything > that's compiled with libfuzzer and copied to $OUT will be picked up by > oss-fuzz automatically. Makes sense?
It does, yes. Yet nothing like that was said in the description. How should anyone have known there are future possibilities with this script? Jan
