On 201014 1009, Darren Kenny wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2020-10-13 at 17:52:46 +01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 05:50:37PM +0100, Darren Kenny wrote:
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> This mentions the use of atexit() to perform some cleanup, but I'm not
> >> seeing that being added here
On Tuesday, 2020-10-13 at 17:52:46 +01, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 05:50:37PM +0100, Darren Kenny wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> This mentions the use of atexit() to perform some cleanup, but I'm not
>> seeing that being added here, should it be?
>
> The reference to atexit is s
On 201013 1750, Darren Kenny wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> This mentions the use of atexit() to perform some cleanup, but I'm not
> seeing that being added here, should it be?
>
That sentence was not clear.. I meant that the developer can
(optionally) use atexit when writing a new fuzz-target to perform
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 05:50:37PM +0100, Darren Kenny wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> This mentions the use of atexit() to perform some cleanup, but I'm not
> seeing that being added here, should it be?
The reference to atexit is strange, because it says the only way to
kill the fuzzer is SIGKILL, and tha
Hi Alex,
This mentions the use of atexit() to perform some cleanup, but I'm not
seeing that being added here, should it be?
Thanks,
Darren.
On Tuesday, 2020-10-13 at 11:29:20 -04, Alexander Bulekov wrote:
> With the fuzzer, we never call main_loop_should_exit, since we manually
> call main_loop
With the fuzzer, we never call main_loop_should_exit, since we manually
call main_loop_wait. This means that the only way to terminate the
fuzzer is with SIGKILL. Disable the signal handlers, so there are
reasonable ways to terminate the fuzzer and use atexit() to clean-up
after the fuzzer.
Signed
