Papers › Fuzzing at Scale: The Untold Story of the Scheduler
Fuzzing at Scale: The Untold Story of the Scheduler
Ivica Nikolic, Racchit Jain
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
How to search for bugs in 1,000 programs using a pre-existing fuzzer and a standard PC? We consider this problem and show that a well-designed strategy that determines which programs to fuzz and for how long can greatly impact the number of bugs found across the programs. In fact, the impact of employing an effective strategy is comparable to that of utilizing a state-of-the-art fuzzer. The considered problem is referred to as fuzzing at scale, and the strategy as scheduler. We show that besides a naive scheduler, that allocates equal fuzz time to all programs, we can consider dynamic schedulers that adjust time allocation based on the ongoing fuzzing progress of individual programs. Such schedulers are superior because they lead both to higher number of total found bugs and to higher number of found bugs for most programs. The performance gap between naive and dynamic schedulers can be as wide (or even wider) as the gap between two fuzzers. Our findings thus suggest that the problem of advancing schedulers is fundamental for fuzzing at scale. We develop several schedulers and leverage the most sophisticated one to fuzz simultaneously our newly compiled benchmark of around 5,000 Ubuntu programs, and detect 4908 bugs.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections