Author: Katie Hockman
golang.org/s/draft-fuzzing-design
This is the original Design Draft, not the formal Go proposal. The contents of this page may be out-of-date.
The accepted Go proposal is Issue #44551
Systems built with Go must be secure and resilient. Fuzzing can help with this, by allowing developers to identify and fix bugs, empowering them to improve the quality of their code. However, there is no standard way of fuzzing Go code today, and no out-of-the-box tooling or support. This proposal will create a unified fuzzing narrative which makes fuzzing a first class option for Go developers.
Fuzzing is a type of automated testing which continuously manipulates inputs to a program to find issues such as panics, bugs, or data races to which the code may be susceptible. These semi-random data mutations can discover new code coverage that existing unit tests may miss, and uncover edge-case bugs which would otherwise go unnoticed. This type of testing works best when able to run more mutations quickly, rather than fewer mutations intelligently.
Since fuzzing can reach edge cases which humans often miss, fuzz testing is particularly valuable for finding security exploits and vulnerabilities. Fuzz tests have historically been authored primarily by security engineers, and hackers may use similar methods to find vulnerabilities maliciously. However, writing fuzz tests needn’t be constrained to developers with security expertise. There is great value in fuzz testing all programs, including those which may be more subtly security-relevant, especially those working with arbitrary user input.
Other languages support and encourage fuzz testing. libFuzzer and AFL are widely used, particularly with C/C++, and AFL has identified vulnerabilities in programs like Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, OpenSSH, Adobe Flash, and more. In Rust, cargo-fuzz allows for fuzzing of structured data in addition to raw bytes, allowing for even more flexibility with authoring fuzz tests. Existing tools in Go, such as go-fuzz, have many success stories, but there is no fully supported or canonical solution for Go. The goal is to make fuzzing a first-class experience, making it so easy that it becomes the norm for Go packages to have fuzz tests. Having fuzz tests available in a standard format makes it possible to use them automatically in CI, or even as the basis for experiments with different mutation engines.
There is strong community interest for this. It’s the third most supported proposal on the issue tracker (~500 +1s), with projects like go-fuzz (3.5K stars) and other community-led efforts that have been in the works for several years. Prototypes exist, but lack core features like robust module support, go command integration, and integration with new compiler instrumentation.
Support Fuzz functions in Go test files, making fuzzing a first class option for Go developers through unified, end-to-end support.
One alternative would be to keep with the status quo and ask Go developers to use existing tools, or build their own as needed. Developers could use tools like go-fuzz or fzgo (built on top of go-fuzz) to solve some of their needs. However, each existing solution involves more work than typical Go testing, and is missing crucial features. Fuzz testing shouldn’t be any more complicated, or any less feature-complete, than other types of Go testing (like benchmarking or unit testing). Existing solutions add extra overhead such as custom command line tools, separate test files or build tags, lack of robust modules support, and lack of testing/customization support from the standard library.
By making fuzzing easier for developers, we will increase the amount of Go code that’s covered by fuzz tests. This will have particularly high impact for heavily depended upon or security-sensitive packages. The more Go code that’s covered by fuzz tests, the more bugs will be found and fixed in the wider ecosystem. These bug fixes matter for the stability and security of systems written in Go.
The best solution for Go in the long-term is to have a feature-rich, fully supported, unified narrative for fuzzing. It should be just as easy to write fuzz tests as it is to write unit tests. Developers should be able to use existing tools for which they are already familiar, with small variations to support fuzzing. Along with the language support, we must provide documentation, tutorials, and incentives for Go package owners to add fuzz tests to their packages. This is a measurable goal, and we can track the number of fuzz tests and resulting bug fixes resulting from this design.
Standardizing this also provides new opportunities for other tools to be built, and integration into existing infrastructure. For example, this proposal creates consistency for building and running fuzz tests, making it easier to build turnkey OSS-Fuzz support.
In the long term, this design could start to replace existing table tests, seamlessly integrating into the existing Go testing ecosystem.
Some motivations written or provided by members of the Go community:
This proposal will not impact any current compatibility promises. It is possible that there are existing FuzzX functions in yyy_test.go files today, and the go command will emit an error on such functions if they have an unsupported signature. This should however be unlikely, since most existing fuzz tools don’t support these functions within yyy_test.go files.
There are several components to this design draft which are described below. The big pieces to be supported in the MVP are: support for fuzzing built-in types, structs, and types which implement the BinaryMarshaler and BinaryUnmarshaler interfaces or the TextMarshaler and TextUnmarshaler interfaces, a new testing.F type, full go command support, and building a tailored-to-Go fuzzing engine using the new compiler instrumentation.
There is already a lot of existing work that has been done to support this, and we should leverage as much of that as possible when building native support, e.g. go-fuzz, fzgo. Work for this will be done in a dev branch (e.g. dev.fuzzing) of the main Go repository, led by Katie Hockman, with contributions from other members of the Go team and members of the community as appropriate.
The fuzz test is a FuzzX function in a test file. Each fuzz test has its own corpus of inputs.
The fuzz target is the function that is executed for every seed or generated corpus entry.
At the beginning of the fuzz test, a developer provides a “seed corpus”. This is an interesting set of inputs that will be tested using go test by default, and can provide a starting point for a mutation engine if fuzzing. The testing portion of the fuzz test happens in the fuzz target, which is the function passed to f.Fuzz. This function runs much like a standard unit test with testing.T for each input in the seed corpus. If the developer is fuzzing with the new -fuzz flag with go test, then a generated corpus will be managed by the fuzzing engine, and a mutator will generate new inputs to run against the testing function, attempting to discover interesting inputs or crashers.
With the new support, a fuzz test could look like this:
func FuzzMarshalFoo(f *testing.F) {
// Seed the initial corpus
f.Add("cat", big.NewInt(1341))
f.Add("!mouse", big.NewInt(0))
// Run the fuzz test
f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, a string, num *big.Int) {
t.Parallel() // seed corpus tests can run in parallel
if num.Sign() <= 0 {
t.Skip() // only test positive numbers
}
val, err := MarshalFoo(a, num)
if err != nil {
t.Skip()
}
if val == nil {
t.Fatal("MarshalFoo: val == nil, err == nil")
}
a2, num2, err := UnmarshalFoo(val)
if err != nil {
t.Fatalf("failed to unmarshal valid Foo: %v", err)
}
if a2 == nil || num2 == nil {
t.Error("UnmarshalFoo: a==nil, num==nil, err==nil")
}
if a2 != a || !num2.Equal(num) {
t.Error("UnmarshalFoo does not match the provided input")
}
})
}
testing.F works similiarly to testing.T and testing.B. It will implement the testing.TB interface. Functions that are new and only apply to testing.F are listed below.
// Add will add the arguments to the seed corpus for the fuzz test. This
// cannot be invoked after or within the fuzz target. The args must match
// those in the fuzz target.
func (f *F) Add(args ...interface{})
// Fuzz runs the fuzz target, ff, for fuzz testing. While fuzzing with -fuzz,
// the fuzz test and ff may be run in multiple worker processes that don't
// share global state within the process. Only one call to Fuzz is allowed per
// fuzz test, and any subsequent calls will panic. If ff fails for a set of
// arguments, those arguments will be added to the seed corpus.
func (f *F) Fuzz(ff interface{})
A fuzz test has two main components: 1) seeding the corpus and 2) the fuzz target which is executed for items in the corpus.
testdata/corpus/FuzzTest, are run by default with go test.The arguments to f.Add(...) and the arguments of the fuzz target must be the same type within the fuzz test, and there must be at least one argument specified. This will be ensured by a vet check.
Fuzzing of built-in types (e.g. simple types, maps, arrays) and types which implement the BinaryMarshaler and TextMarshaler interfaces are supported.
In the future, structs that do not implement the BinaryMarshaler and TextMarshaler interfaces may be supported by building them based on their exported fields.
Interfaces, functions, and channels are not appropriate types to fuzz, so will never be supported.
The seed corpus is the user-specified set of inputs to a fuzz test which will be run by default with go test. These should be composed of meaningful inputs to test the behavior of the package, as well as a set of regression inputs for any newly discovered bugs identified by the fuzzing engine. This set of inputs is also used to “seed” the corpus used by the fuzzing engine when mutating inputs to discover new code coverage. A good seed corpus can save the mutation engine a lot of work (for example adding a new key type to a key parsing function).
Each fuzz test will always look in the package’s testdata/corpus/FuzzTest directory for an existing seed corpus to use, if one exists. New crashes will also be written to this directory.
The seed corpus can be populated programmatically using f.Add within the fuzz test.
Examples:
1: A fuzz target takes a single []byte.
f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, b []byte) {...})
This is the typical “non-structured fuzzing” approach, and only the single []byte will be mutated while fuzzing.
2: A fuzz target takes two arguments.
f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, a string, num *big.Int) {...})
This example uses string, which is a built-in type, and as such can be decoded directly. *big.Int implements UnmarshalText, so can also be unmarshaled using that method. The mutator will alter the bytes of both the string and the *big.Int while seeking new code coverage.
The testdata/corpus directory will hold corpus files which act as the seed corpus as well as a set of regression tests for identified crashers. Corpus files must be encoded to support multiple fuzzing arguments.
The first line of the corpus file indicates the encoding “version” of this file, which for version 1 will be go test fuzz v1. This is to indicate how the file was encoded, which allows for new, improved encodings in the future.
For version 1, each subsequent line represents the value of each type making up the corpus entry. Each line is copy-pastable directly into Go code. The only case where the line would require editing is for imported struct types, in which case the import path would be removed when used in code.
For example:
go test fuzz v1
float(45.241)
int(12345)
[]byte("ABC\xa8\x8c\xb3G\xfc")
example.com/foo.Bar.UnmarshalText("\xfe\x99Uh\xb4\xe29\xed")
A tool will be provided that can convert between binary files and corpus files (in both directions). This tool would serve two main purposes. It would allow binary files, such as images, or files from other fuzzers, to be ported over into seed corpus for Go fuzzing. It would also convert otherwise indecipherable hex bytes into a binary format which may be easier to read and edit.
To make it easier to understand new crashes, each crash found by the fuzzing engine will be written to a binary file in $GOCACHE. This file should not be checked in, as the crash will have already been written to a corpus file in testdata within the module. Instead, this file is a way to quickly get an idea about the input which caused the crash, without requiring a tool to decode it.
A new coverage-guided fuzzing engine, written in Go, will be built. This fuzzing engine will be responsible for using compiler instrumentation to understand coverage information, generating test arguments with a mutator, and maintaining the corpus.
The mutator is responsible for working with a generator to mutate bytes to be used as input to the fuzz test.
Take the following fuzz target arguments as an example.
A string // N bytes
B int64 // 8 bytes
Num *big.Int // M bytes
A generator will provide some bytes for each type, where the number of bytes could be constant (e.g. 8 bytes for an int64) or variable (e.g. N bytes for a string, likely with some upper bound).
For constant-length types, the number of bytes can be hard-coded into the fuzzing engine, making generation simpler.
For variable-length types, the mutator is responsible for varying the number of bytes requested from the generator.
These bytes then need to be converted to the types used by the fuzz target. The string and other built-in types can be decoded directly. For other types, this can be done using either UnmarshalBinary or UnmarshalText if implemented on the type. In the future, it may support fuzzing struct types which don't implement these marshalers by building it through its exported fields.
A generated corpus will be managed by the fuzzing engine and will live outside the module in a subdirectory of $GOCACHE. This generated corpus will grow as the fuzzing engine discovers new coverage.
The details of how the corpus is built and processed should be unimportant to users. This should be a technical detail that developers don’t need to understand in order to seed a corpus or write a fuzz test. Any existing files that a developer wants to include in the fuzz test may be added to the seed corpus.
A crasher is a panic or failure in the fuzz target, or a race condition, which was found while fuzzing. By default, the fuzz test will stop after the first crasher is found, and a crash report will be provided. Crash reports will include the inputs that caused the crash and the resulting error message or stack trace. The crasher inputs will be written to the package's testdata/corpus directory as after being minified where possible.
Since this crasher is added to testdata/corpus, which will then be run by default as part of the seed corpus for the fuzz test, this can act as a test for the new failure. A user experience may look something like this:
go test -fuzz=FuzzFoo, and a crasher is found while fuzzing.go test (without needing -fuzz=FuzzFoo) will then reproduce this crash, and continue to fail until the bug is fixed. A user could also run go test -run=FuzzFoo/<filename> to only run a specific file in the testdata/corpus directory when debugging.Fuzz testing will only be supported in module mode, and if run in GOPATH mode, the fuzz tests will be ignored.
Fuzz tests will be in *_test.go files, and can be in the same file as Test and Benchmark targets. These test files can exist wherever *_test.go files can currently live, and do not need to be in any fuzz-specific directory or have a fuzz-specific file name or build tag.
The generated corpus will be in a new directory within $GOCACHE, in the form $GOCACHE/fuzz/$pkg/$test/$name, where $pkg is the package path containing the fuzz test, $test is the name of the fuzz test, and $name is the name of the file.
The default behavior of go test will be to build and run the fuzz tests using the seed corpus only. No special instrumentation would be needed, the mutation engine would not run, and the test can be cached as usual. This default mode will not run the generated corpus against the fuzz test. This is to allow for reproducibility and cacheability for go test executions by default.
In order to run a fuzz test with the mutation engine, -fuzz will take a regexp which must match only one fuzz test. In this situtation, only the fuzz test will run (ignoring all other tests). Only one package is allowed to be tested at a time in this mode. The following flags will be added or have modified meaning:
-fuzz name
Run the fuzz test with the given regexp. Must match at most one fuzz
test.
-fuzztime
Run enough iterations of the fuzz test to take t, specified as a
time.Duration (for example, -fuzztime 1h30s).
The default is to run forever.
The special syntax Nx means to run the fuzz test N times
(for example, -fuzztime 100x).
-keepfuzzing
Keep running the fuzz test if a crasher is found. (default false)
-parallel
Allow parallel execution of a fuzz target that calls t.Parallel when
running the seed corpus.
While fuzzing with -fuzz, the value of this flag is the maximum number of
workers to run the fuzz target simultaneously; by default, it is set to
the value of GOMAXPROCS.
Note that -parallel only applies within a single test binary.
-race
Enable data race detection while fuzzing. (default false)
-run
Run only those tests, examples, and fuzz tests matching the regular
expression.
For testing a single seed corpus entry for a fuzz test, the regular
expression can be in the form $test/$name, where $test is the name of
the fuzz test, and $name is the name of the file (ignoring file
extensions) to run.
go test will not respect -p when running with -fuzz, as it doesn't make sense to fuzz multiple packages at the same time.
There will also be a new flag, -fuzzcache introduced to go clean. When this flag is not set, go clean will not automatically remove generated corpus files, even though they are written into a subdirectory of $GOCACHE. In order to remove the generated corpus files, one must run go clean -fuzzcache, which will remove all generated corpus in $GOCACHE.
The current design allows matching one and only one fuzz test with -fuzz per package. This is to eliminate complexity in the early prototype, and move towards a working solution as quickly as possible. However, there are use cases for matching more than one fuzz test with -fuzz. For example, in the cases where developers want to fuzz an entire package over a long period of time, it would be useful for the fuzzing engine to support cycling around multiple fuzz tests at once with a single go test -fuzz command. This is likely to be considered in future iterations of the design.
There are options that developers often need to fuzz effectively and safely. These options will likely make the most sense on a test-by-test basis, rather than as a go test flag. Which options to make available, and precisely how these will be defined still needs some investigation. For example, it could look something like this:
func FuzzFoo(f *testing.F) {
f.MaxInputSize(1024)
f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, a string) {
...
})
}
Developers may prefer to store the generated corpus in a seperate repository, in cloud storage, or some other shared location, rather than in each developer's $GOCACHE. The details about how best to support developers with these use cases still needs investigation, and is not a requirement for the MVP. However, there may be support for a -fuzzdir flag (or something similar) in the future, which specifies the location of the generated corpus.
Support accepting dictionaries when seeding the corpus to guide the fuzzer.
We might need a way to specify to instrument only some packages for coverage, but there isn’t enough data yet to be sure. One example use case for this would be a fuzzing engine which is spending too much time discovering coverage in the encoding/json parser, when it should instead be focusing on coverage for some intended package.
There are also questions about whether or not this is possible with the current compiler instrumentation available. By runtime, the fuzz test will have already been compiled, so recompiling to leave out (or only include) certain packages may not be feasible.
There may be a need for developers to craft custom generators for use by the mutator. The design can support this by using marshaling/unmarshaling to edit certain fields, but the work to do so is a bit cumbersome. For example, if a string should always have some prefix in order to work in the fuzz target, one could do the following.
type myString struct {
s string
}
func (m *myString) MarshalText() (text []byte, err error) {
return []byte(m.s[len("SOME_PREFIX"):]), nil
}
func (m *myString) UnmarshalText(text []byte) error {
m.s = "SOME_PREFIX" + string(text)
return nil
}
func FuzzFoo(f *testing.F) {
f.Fuzz(func(t *testing.T, m *myString) {...})
}