Don't build WASM for fuzz-coverage tests#39296
Merged
mathetake merged 8 commits intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom May 22, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
Contributor
Author
|
/retest |
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
…zz-coverage Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
krinkinmu
force-pushed
the
disable-wasm-for-fuzz-coverage
branch
from
9c61ec1 to
9a4df9d
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
/re-test |
Contributor
Author
|
/retest |
Contributor
Author
|
/retest failed checks |
…zz-coverage Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
…zz-coverage Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
Contributor
Author
|
/retest an msan flake |
Contributor
Author
|
/retest cancelled workflows |
mathetake
approved these changes
May 22, 2025
Member
mathetake
left a comment
mathetake
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks reasonable to me plus I see there's a consensus in the linked discussion that this is the way to go
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in #39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use #39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in #39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use #39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com>
phlax
pushed a commit
to phlax/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in envoyproxy#39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use envoyproxy#39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in #39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use #39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
phlax
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 11, 2025
Commit Message: Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime. On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added). Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used. Additional Description: Some relevant discussions can be found in #39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use #39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes. Risk Level: low Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests Docs Changes: n/a Release Notes: n/a Platform Specific Features: n/a --------- Signed-off-by: Mikhail Krinkin <mkrinkin@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Ryan Northey <ryan@synca.io>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Commit Message:
Simple grep over the codebase suggests that we don't have any WASM specific fuzz tests defined. And existing fuzz tests don't need a full WASM runtime.
On top of that in general we don't really want to fuzz test our dependencies (e.g., we would like the dependencies to have their own infrastructure and be scrupulous when new dependencies are added).
Disabling WASM reduces the build time and resources required for fuzz-coverage. One particular reason to try and optimize fuzz-coverage is that I want to move it to static linking to work around a bug in Clang/LLVM (see llvm/llvm-project#32849) and static linking produces much large binaries and requires a larger linker footprint, which currently hits the limits of the RBE backend used.
Additional Description:
Some relevant discussions can be found in #39030 which prompted me to work on this in the first place. And I will use #39248 as a tracking bug for the coverage changes.
Risk Level: low
Testing: running fuzz-coverage on local machine with the changes included, I also confirmed that disabling wasm + moving fuzz-coverage to EngFlow + removing explicit RBE pool attributes from fuzz targets make it possible to successfully statically link fuzz tests
Docs Changes: n/a
Release Notes: n/a
Platform Specific Features: n/a
+cc @phlax