My Fuzzers Won’t Build: An Empirical Study of Fuzzing Build Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzing is an automated software testing technique used to find software vulnerabilities that works by sending large amounts of inputs to a software system to trigger bad behaviors. In recent years, the open source software ecosystem has seen a significant increase in the adoption of fuzzing to avoid spreading vulnerabilities throughout the ecosystem. While fuzzing can uncover vulnerabilities, there is currently a lack of knowledge regarding the challenges of conducting fuzzing activities over time. Specifically, fuzzers are very complex tools to set up and build before they can be used. We set out to empirically find out how challenging is build maintenance in the context of fuzzing. We mine over 1.2 million build logs from Google’s OSS-Fuzz service to investigate fuzzing build failures. We first conduct a quantitative analysis to quantify the prevalence of fuzzing build failures. We then manually investigate 677 failing fuzzing builds logs and establish a taxonomy of 25 root causes of build failures. We finally train a machine learning model to recognize common failure patterns in failing build logs. Our taxonomy can serve as a reference for practitioners conducting fuzzing build maintenance. Our modeling experiment shows the potential of using automation to simplify the process of fuzzing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".