Skip to content

Disable fuzztest subprocess library on Apple tvOS #1711

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 28, 2025

Conversation

abhijeetk
Copy link
Contributor

@abhijeetk abhijeetk commented May 22, 2025

On tvOS, creating child processes is forbidden at an API level, so the
posix_spawn_* functions used by FuzzTest in the subprocess code cause
build errors.

This change disables the subprocess library on Apple tvOS to avoid
calling unsupported functions.

This isssue is similar to b222049

Co-Authored-By: [email protected]

Copy link

@rakuco rakuco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In our Chromium fork for Apple tvOS, we build against the tvOS SDK.

I think this PR makes sense even without mentioning Chromium, as these changes help anyone trying to build and use fuzz tests on tvOS.

Copy link

@rakuco rakuco left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd still reword the first paragraph of the PR message. Saying that tvOS builds use the tvOS SDK is redundant, so something like this should suffice:

In our Apple tvOS build environment, we compile FuzzTest against the
tvOS SDK.

On tvOS, creating child processes is forbidden at an API level, so the posix_spawn_* functions used by FuzzTest in the subprocess code cause build errors.

@abhijeetk abhijeetk force-pushed the disable_tvos_fuzz branch from 46ca685 to edf62eb Compare May 22, 2025 20:39
@rakuco
Copy link

rakuco commented May 23, 2025

Looks fine to me!

@lszekeres could you take a look at this PR? The CMake codelab check seems to be failing because the code assumes that the PR branch was pushed to the google/fuzztest repository rather than a fork.

copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 24, 2025
We need to use the PR repo, not the upstream in the codelab test.

Context: #1711 (comment)
PiperOrigin-RevId: 762676963
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 24, 2025
We need to use the PR repo, not the upstream in the codelab test.

Context: #1711 (comment)
PiperOrigin-RevId: 762676963
copybara-service bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2025
We need to use the PR repo, not the upstream in the codelab test.

Context: #1711 (comment)
PiperOrigin-RevId: 763113538
@abhijeetk
Copy link
Contributor Author

abhijeetk commented May 26, 2025

@lszekeres Is this failure caused by an issue in the internal tooling or framework?
Can I help with testing or fixing it?

Also, is it related to this(07d3d31) patch that's supposed to fix the CMake build failure

Thanks!

@rakuco
Copy link

rakuco commented May 26, 2025

@abhijeetk you can try amending the commit to change the hash and force-pushing your branch to trigger the CI again, that commit should've fixed things.

On tvOS, creating child processes is forbidden at an API level, so the
posix_spawn_* functions used by FuzzTest in the subprocess code cause
build errors.

This change disables the subprocess library on Apple tvOS to avoid
calling unsupported functions.

This isssue is similar to b222049

Co-Authored-By: [email protected]
@abhijeetk abhijeetk force-pushed the disable_tvos_fuzz branch from edf62eb to 6d0b498 Compare May 27, 2025 06:02
@abhijeetk
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @lszekeres, I think we’re very close. The GCC build appears to be failing, but I couldn’t find a specific error message in the logs. Do you have any insight into what might be causing it?

@copybara-service copybara-service bot merged commit 7a6e3de into google:main May 28, 2025
15 of 16 checks passed
@abhijeetk
Copy link
Contributor Author

abhijeetk commented May 28, 2025

Thanks everyone for review.

@lszekeres
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants