Share objectives between nodes

[BAGUVIX456]

fixes issue #1917

[BAGUVIX456]

Do tell me if I have overlooked anything. Also, is this okay as a compile-time option?

[tokatoka]

Also, is this okay as a compile-time option?

yeah

[BAGUVIX456]

Does LibAFL have a preferred way to tackle conditional trait bounds based on compile-time features? I am having to add optional trait bounds by dividing implementations based on features, and is causing massive code duplication

[tokatoka]

The implementation of MaybeHasClientPerfMonitor could answer your question

[BAGUVIX456]

@tokatoka is this issue fixed? Should I stop working on this issue?

[tokatoka]

no i closed because you have this PR

[domenukk]

I suggest we leave issues open until they are actually fixed in main

[BAGUVIX456]

@tokatoka could you explain what are you trying to do in PRs #2761 and #2745? i am having trouble fixing conflicts

[BAGUVIX456]

Any idea why msrv is failing? cargo hack worked fine for me locally

[Mrmaxmeier]

Any idea why msrv is failing? cargo hack worked fine for me locally

Seems like the home crate updated their MSRV without a major version bump so building with fresh/up-to-date crates leads to a MSRV mismatch

[BAGUVIX456]

Should I try implementing this in some other way?

[BAGUVIX456]

@tokatoka I am having to declare the method perform() of the Stage trait twice on merging the duplicate impl blocks in stages/sync.rs, one with the required additional trait bounds and other being the original definition. The other way to merge the impl blocks would be to trivially add the trait bounds without cfg flags, which would have no code duplication but we would be left with a redundant bound when objectives are not shared. How do I proceed with this?

[tokatoka]

Hey @BAGUVIX456 , sorry I was in holidays before and I am just back today.

which would have no code duplication but we would be left with a redundant bound when objectives are not shared.

this is okay.
to be specific you can avoid this problem if you do in a way similar to how MaybeHasClientPerfMonitor
See this snippet

#[cfg(feature = "introspection")]
/// Trait for offering a [`ClientPerfMonitor`]
pub trait HasClientPerfMonitor {
    /// [`ClientPerfMonitor`] itself
    fn introspection_monitor(&self) -> &ClientPerfMonitor;

    /// Mutatable ref to [`ClientPerfMonitor`]
    fn introspection_monitor_mut(&mut self) -> &mut ClientPerfMonitor;
}

/// Intermediate trait for `HasClientPerfMonitor`
#[cfg(feature = "introspection")]
pub trait MaybeHasClientPerfMonitor: HasClientPerfMonitor {}

/// Intermediate trait for `HasClientPerfmonitor`
#[cfg(not(feature = "introspection"))]
pub trait MaybeHasClientPerfMonitor {}

but you don't have to.
Overspecifying a bit is fine.

[tokatoka]

If you are ready change this to "Ready for review"

You'll see merge conflict, but I'll merge for you, tell me when you need to merge

[BAGUVIX456]

I'm assuming the failing CIs are not an issue? Do tell me if I have to fix them before merging

[tokatoka]

you can ignore them now.
for now, just de-duplicate the code by overspecifying.
after that i fix the conflict
and then if there's still problem remaining regarding clippy, plz fix them

[BAGUVIX456]

yeah i have deduplicated the code already, you can go ahead

[tokatoka]

do you need clone()?

[tokatoka]

here put the same code as you did in llmp/mod.rs

[domenukk]

Can we add a runtime flag instead of compile time? Overhead should be minimal and it's easier to use IMHO