| # Tips for parallel fuzzing | |
| This document talks about synchronizing afl-fuzz jobs on a single machine | |
| or across a fleet of systems. See README.md for the general instruction manual. | |
| ## 1) Introduction | |
| Every copy of afl-fuzz will take up one CPU core. This means that on an | |
| n-core system, you can almost always run around n concurrent fuzzing jobs with | |
| virtually no performance hit (you can use the afl-gotcpu tool to make sure). | |
| In fact, if you rely on just a single job on a multi-core system, you will | |
| be underutilizing the hardware. So, parallelization is usually the right | |
| way to go. | |
| When targeting multiple unrelated binaries or using the tool in "dumb" (-n) | |
| mode, it is perfectly fine to just start up several fully separate instances | |
| of afl-fuzz. The picture gets more complicated when you want to have multiple | |
| fuzzers hammering a common target: if a hard-to-hit but interesting test case | |
| is synthesized by one fuzzer, the remaining instances will not be able to use | |
| that input to guide their work. | |
| To help with this problem, afl-fuzz offers a simple way to synchronize test | |
| cases on the fly. | |
| Note that afl++ has AFLfast's power schedules implemented. | |
| It is therefore a good idea to use different power schedules if you run | |
| several instances in parallel. See [power_schedules.md](power_schedules.md) | |
| Alternatively running other AFL spinoffs in parallel can be of value, | |
| e.g. Angora (https://github.com/AngoraFuzzer/Angora/) | |
| ## 2) Single-system parallelization | |
| If you wish to parallelize a single job across multiple cores on a local | |
| system, simply create a new, empty output directory ("sync dir") that will be | |
| shared by all the instances of afl-fuzz; and then come up with a naming scheme | |
| for every instance - say, "fuzzer01", "fuzzer02", etc. | |
| Run the first one ("master", -M) like this: | |
| ``` | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -M fuzzer01 [...other stuff...] | |
| ``` | |
| ...and then, start up secondary (-S) instances like this: | |
| ``` | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -S fuzzer02 [...other stuff...] | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -S fuzzer03 [...other stuff...] | |
| ``` | |
| Each fuzzer will keep its state in a separate subdirectory, like so: | |
| /path/to/sync_dir/fuzzer01/ | |
| Each instance will also periodically rescan the top-level sync directory | |
| for any test cases found by other fuzzers - and will incorporate them into | |
| its own fuzzing when they are deemed interesting enough. | |
| The difference between the -M and -S modes is that the master instance will | |
| still perform deterministic checks; while the secondary instances will | |
| proceed straight to random tweaks. If you don't want to do deterministic | |
| fuzzing at all, it's OK to run all instances with -S. With very slow or complex | |
| targets, or when running heavily parallelized jobs, this is usually a good plan. | |
| Note that running multiple -M instances is wasteful, although there is an | |
| experimental support for parallelizing the deterministic checks. To leverage | |
| that, you need to create -M instances like so: | |
| ``` | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -M masterA:1/3 [...] | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -M masterB:2/3 [...] | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz -i testcase_dir -o sync_dir -M masterC:3/3 [...] | |
| ``` | |
| ...where the first value after ':' is the sequential ID of a particular master | |
| instance (starting at 1), and the second value is the total number of fuzzers to | |
| distribute the deterministic fuzzing across. Note that if you boot up fewer | |
| fuzzers than indicated by the second number passed to -M, you may end up with | |
| poor coverage. | |
| You can also monitor the progress of your jobs from the command line with the | |
| provided afl-whatsup tool. When the instances are no longer finding new paths, | |
| it's probably time to stop. | |
| WARNING: Exercise caution when explicitly specifying the -f option. Each fuzzer | |
| must use a separate temporary file; otherwise, things will go south. One safe | |
| example may be: | |
| ``` | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz [...] -S fuzzer10 -f file10.txt ./fuzzed/binary @@ | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz [...] -S fuzzer11 -f file11.txt ./fuzzed/binary @@ | |
| $ ./afl-fuzz [...] -S fuzzer12 -f file12.txt ./fuzzed/binary @@ | |
| ``` | |
| This is not a concern if you use @@ without -f and let afl-fuzz come up with the | |
| file name. | |
| ## 3) Multi-system parallelization | |
| The basic operating principle for multi-system parallelization is similar to | |
| the mechanism explained in section 2. The key difference is that you need to | |
| write a simple script that performs two actions: | |
| - Uses SSH with authorized_keys to connect to every machine and retrieve | |
| a tar archive of the /path/to/sync_dir/<fuzzer_id>/queue/ directories for | |
| every <fuzzer_id> local to the machine. It's best to use a naming scheme | |
| that includes host name in the fuzzer ID, so that you can do something | |
| like: | |
| ```sh | |
| for s in {1..10}; do | |
| ssh user@host${s} "tar -czf - sync/host${s}_fuzzid*/[qf]*" >host${s}.tgz | |
| done | |
| ``` | |
| - Distributes and unpacks these files on all the remaining machines, e.g.: | |
| ```sh | |
| for s in {1..10}; do | |
| for d in {1..10}; do | |
| test "$s" = "$d" && continue | |
| ssh user@host${d} 'tar -kxzf -' <host${s}.tgz | |
| done | |
| done | |
| ``` | |
| There is an example of such a script in examples/distributed_fuzzing/; | |
| you can also find a more featured, experimental tool developed by | |
| Martijn Bogaard at: | |
| https://github.com/MartijnB/disfuzz-afl | |
| Another client-server implementation from Richo Healey is: | |
| https://github.com/richo/roving | |
| Note that these third-party tools are unsafe to run on systems exposed to the | |
| Internet or to untrusted users. | |
| When developing custom test case sync code, there are several optimizations | |
| to keep in mind: | |
| - The synchronization does not have to happen very often; running the | |
| task every 30 minutes or so may be perfectly fine. | |
| - There is no need to synchronize crashes/ or hangs/; you only need to | |
| copy over queue/* (and ideally, also fuzzer_stats). | |
| - It is not necessary (and not advisable!) to overwrite existing files; | |
| the -k option in tar is a good way to avoid that. | |
| - There is no need to fetch directories for fuzzers that are not running | |
| locally on a particular machine, and were simply copied over onto that | |
| system during earlier runs. | |
| - For large fleets, you will want to consolidate tarballs for each host, | |
| as this will let you use n SSH connections for sync, rather than n*(n-1). | |
| You may also want to implement staged synchronization. For example, you | |
| could have 10 groups of systems, with group 1 pushing test cases only | |
| to group 2; group 2 pushing them only to group 3; and so on, with group | |
| eventually 10 feeding back to group 1. | |
| This arrangement would allow test interesting cases to propagate across | |
| the fleet without having to copy every fuzzer queue to every single host. | |
| - You do not want a "master" instance of afl-fuzz on every system; you should | |
| run them all with -S, and just designate a single process somewhere within | |
| the fleet to run with -M. | |
| It is *not* advisable to skip the synchronization script and run the fuzzers | |
| directly on a network filesystem; unexpected latency and unkillable processes | |
| in I/O wait state can mess things up. | |
| ## 4) Remote monitoring and data collection | |
| You can use screen, nohup, tmux, or something equivalent to run remote | |
| instances of afl-fuzz. If you redirect the program's output to a file, it will | |
| automatically switch from a fancy UI to more limited status reports. There is | |
| also basic machine-readable information always written to the fuzzer_stats file | |
| in the output directory. Locally, that information can be interpreted with | |
| afl-whatsup. | |
| In principle, you can use the status screen of the master (-M) instance to | |
| monitor the overall fuzzing progress and decide when to stop. In this | |
| mode, the most important signal is just that no new paths are being found | |
| for a longer while. If you do not have a master instance, just pick any | |
| single secondary instance to watch and go by that. | |
| You can also rely on that instance's output directory to collect the | |
| synthesized corpus that covers all the noteworthy paths discovered anywhere | |
| within the fleet. Secondary (-S) instances do not require any special | |
| monitoring, other than just making sure that they are up. | |
| Keep in mind that crashing inputs are *not* automatically propagated to the | |
| master instance, so you may still want to monitor for crashes fleet-wide | |
| from within your synchronization or health checking scripts (see afl-whatsup). | |
| ## 5) Asymmetric setups | |
| It is perhaps worth noting that all of the following is permitted: | |
| - Running afl-fuzz with conjunction with other guided tools that can extend | |
| coverage (e.g., via concolic execution). Third-party tools simply need to | |
| follow the protocol described above for pulling new test cases from | |
| out_dir/<fuzzer_id>/queue/* and writing their own finds to sequentially | |
| numbered id:nnnnnn files in out_dir/<ext_tool_id>/queue/*. | |
| - Running some of the synchronized fuzzers with different (but related) | |
| target binaries. For example, simultaneously stress-testing several | |
| different JPEG parsers (say, IJG jpeg and libjpeg-turbo) while sharing | |
| the discovered test cases can have synergistic effects and improve the | |
| overall coverage. | |
| (In this case, running one -M instance per each binary is a good plan.) | |
| - Having some of the fuzzers invoke the binary in different ways. | |
| For example, 'djpeg' supports several DCT modes, configurable with | |
| a command-line flag, while 'dwebp' supports incremental and one-shot | |
| decoding. In some scenarios, going after multiple distinct modes and then | |
| pooling test cases will improve coverage. | |
| - Much less convincingly, running the synchronized fuzzers with different | |
| starting test cases (e.g., progressive and standard JPEG) or dictionaries. | |
| The synchronization mechanism ensures that the test sets will get fairly | |
| homogeneous over time, but it introduces some initial variability. |