diff options
| author | van Hauser <vh@thc.org> | 2019-07-12 19:16:59 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | van Hauser <vh@thc.org> | 2019-07-12 19:16:59 +0200 |
| commit | 3e14d63a0ae0e574d81d3d58c75a4b751764ac49 (patch) | |
| tree | a6417207f720c46f4cf6de07979801305c76560f | |
| parent | eddfddccb2eb385afd076006e01fdfebacad9bec (diff) | |
| download | afl++-3e14d63a0ae0e574d81d3d58c75a4b751764ac49.tar.gz | |
update doc
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/binaryonly_fuzzing.txt | 12 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/docs/binaryonly_fuzzing.txt b/docs/binaryonly_fuzzing.txt index ed654e2a..f370ec74 100644 --- a/docs/binaryonly_fuzzing.txt +++ b/docs/binaryonly_fuzzing.txt @@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ insert instructions, which changes addresses in the process space and that everything still works afterwards. Hence more often than not binaries crash when they are run. -The speed decrease is about 25-35% +The speed decrease is about 15-35%, depending on the optimization options +used with afl-dyninst. So if dyninst works, its the best option available. Otherwise it just doesn't work well. @@ -55,10 +56,9 @@ INTEL-PT -------- The big issue with Intel's PT is the small buffer size and the complex encoding of the debug information collected through PT. -This makes the decoding very CPU intensive, hence slow and using up twice -the CPU resources. So to fairly compare Intel PT based afl fuzzers with -native afl or afl qemu we need to calculate in the higher CPU resources used. -As a result, the overall speed decrease is about 85-90% +This makes the decoding very CPU intensive and hence slow. +As a result, the overall speed decrease is about 70-90% (depending on +the implementation and other factors) there are two afl intel-pt implementations: @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ there are two afl intel-pt implementations: 2. https://github.com/hunter-ht-2018/ptfuzzer => this needs a 4.14 or 4.15 kernel. the "nopti" kernel boot option must - be used + be used. This one is faster than the other. CORESIGHT |