Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #4671 fuzz: different results for `shr_s`


view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 12:26):

abrown edited issue #4671:

Test Case

(module
  (type (;0;) (func (param i32 i32) (result i32)))
  (func (;0;) (type 0) (param i32 i32) (result i32)
    local.get 0
    local.get 1
    i32.shr_s
  )
  (export "test" (func 0))
)

Also see attached files (annoyingly renamed with .txt appended due to GitHub upload restrictions):
- crash-3be2c01861adcd71b08427e6ad1251de6fb3159b.txt
- testcase169.wat.txt
- testcase169.wasm.txt

Steps to Reproduce

On the abrown:meta-diff branch:

$ RUST_LOG=wasmtime_fuzzing=debug cargo +nightly fuzz run differential-new fuzz/artifacts/differential-new/crash-3be2c01861adcd71b08427e6ad1251de6fb3159b

Expected Results

Execution to match for both the Wasmtime and wasm-spec-interpreter run.

Actual Results

The results of the shift do not match:

[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles] Evaluating: test([I32(1795123818), I32(-2147483648)])
[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles]  -> results on spec: [I32(-2097152)]
[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles]  -> results on wasmtime: [I32(1795123818)]

Versions and Environment

Wasmtime version or commit: abrown:meta-diff branch

Operating system: Fedora 35

Architecture: x86-64

Other

I am reporting this to clean up any fuzz bugs found before trying to merge #4515. In talking to @alexcrichton, the first reaction seemed to be that this is a bug in the spec interpreter OCaml bindings (after all, Wasmtime passes all spec tests for this kind of simple operation as does the spec interpreter, I assume). @conrad-watt, any thoughts on this?

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 13:08):

conrad-watt commented on issue #4671:

This is the result that would be obtained if the arguments were provided in reverse order. I think the solution is to change the following line of interpret.ml:

line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

to
58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.rev_map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

This matches the existing use of List.rev_map in processing the execution result (line 64). The Some path was never exercised before, so sorry for missing this!

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 13:08):

conrad-watt edited a comment on issue #4671:

This is the result that would be obtained if the arguments were provided in reverse order. I think the solution is to change the following line of interpret.ml:

line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

to
line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.rev_map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

This matches the existing use of List.rev_map in processing the execution result (line 64). The Some path was never exercised before, so sorry for missing this!

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 13:20):

conrad-watt edited a comment on issue #4671:

This is the result that would be obtained if the arguments were provided in reverse order. I think the solution is to change the following line of interpret.ml:

line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

to
line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.rev_map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

This matches the existing use of List.rev_map in processing the execution result (line 64). The Some path was never exercised before, so sorry for missing this!

EDIT: it looks like this path _was_ exercised in the unit tests, but hilariously none of the current unit tests care about order of arguments!

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 13:22):

conrad-watt edited a comment on issue #4671:

This is the result that would be obtained if the arguments were provided in reverse order. I think the solution is to change the following line of interpret.ml:

line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

to

line 58:
let opt_params_ = Option.map (List.rev_map convert_to_wasm) opt_params in

This matches the existing use of List.rev_map in processing the execution result (line 64). The Some path was never exercised before, so sorry for missing this!

EDIT: it looks like this path _was_ exercised in the unit tests, but hilariously none of the current unit tests care about order of arguments!

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Aug 10 2022 at 14:55):

alexcrichton closed issue #4671:

Test Case

(module
  (type (;0;) (func (param i32 i32) (result i32)))
  (func (;0;) (type 0) (param i32 i32) (result i32)
    local.get 0
    local.get 1
    i32.shr_s
  )
  (export "test" (func 0))
)

Also see attached files (annoyingly renamed with .txt appended due to GitHub upload restrictions):
- crash-3be2c01861adcd71b08427e6ad1251de6fb3159b.txt
- testcase169.wat.txt
- testcase169.wasm.txt

Steps to Reproduce

On the abrown:meta-diff branch:

$ RUST_LOG=wasmtime_fuzzing=debug cargo +nightly fuzz run differential-new fuzz/artifacts/differential-new/crash-3be2c01861adcd71b08427e6ad1251de6fb3159b

Expected Results

Execution to match for both the Wasmtime and wasm-spec-interpreter run.

Actual Results

The results of the shift do not match:

[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles] Evaluating: test([I32(1795123818), I32(-2147483648)])
[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles]  -> results on spec: [I32(-2097152)]
[2022-08-10T12:14:39Z DEBUG wasmtime_fuzzing::oracles]  -> results on wasmtime: [I32(1795123818)]

Versions and Environment

Wasmtime version or commit: abrown:meta-diff branch

Operating system: Fedora 35

Architecture: x86-64

Other

I am reporting this to clean up any fuzz bugs found before trying to merge #4515. In talking to @alexcrichton, the first reaction seemed to be that this is a bug in the spec interpreter OCaml bindings (after all, Wasmtime passes all spec tests for this kind of simple operation as does the spec interpreter, I assume). @conrad-watt, any thoughts on this?


Last updated: Oct 23 2024 at 20:03 UTC