Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
Automated fuzz testing is now standard practice, yet key blind spots persist. Coverage-guided fuzzers typically rely on edge coverage as a lightweight proxy for program behavior. However, this metric captures path variations only weakly: it cannot differentiate executions that follow distinct control-flow paths but traverse the same edges—causing many path-dependent bugs to go undetected. Path awareness would offer a richer coverage view but has been considered too costly for fuzzing.We introduce a lightweight method for tracking intra-procedural execution paths, enabling efficient path-aware feedback. This enhances the fuzzer’s ability to detect subtle bugs, even in well-tested software. To counter the resulting seed explosion, we evaluate two strategies—culling and opportunistic path-aware fuzzing—that balance precision and throughput. Our findings show that path-aware fuzzing, when properly guided, uncovers more bugs and reveals untapped potential in fuzzing research.
Didier Buchs, Alfred Strohmeier