send patches
...they did.
We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
21–30 of 274 posts
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#22Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#23The fruits of using LLMs to code. You'll waste far more time finding what it quietly and subtly wrecked than you would have if you just coded it yourself.
Those sneaky LLMs going 7 years into the past and committing as a human: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/8eda3c7f91e1a5b...
It’s obviously Claude 69 with time travel functionality, that’s too dangerous to release to public. They’re working on space-time limiting sandbox to prevent these issues.
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#24No doubt fuzzers (vibecoded or otherwise) can be powerful, but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors?
I guess sometimes developers think they "know" some variable won't be zero, but unless it checked explicitly or by the compiler, that shouldn't be trusted.
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#25Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#26No doubt fuzzers (vibecoded or otherwise) can be powerful, but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors? I guess sometimes developers think they "know" some variable won't be zero, but unless it checked explicitly or by the compiler, that shouldn't be trusted.
I mean there could be a guard clause? But yeah, seems like this could be statically evaluated like how some IDEs see a null check and don’t complain about nullability within the same scope.
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#27No doubt fuzzers (vibecoded or otherwise) can be powerful, but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors? I guess sometimes developers think they "know" some variable won't be zero, but unless it checked explicitly or by the compiler, that shouldn't be trusted.
What are you suggesting and how would it be different than how SIGFPE already works?
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#28No doubt fuzzers (vibecoded or otherwise) can be powerful, but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors? I guess sometimes developers think they "know" some variable won't be zero, but unless it checked explicitly or by the compiler, that shouldn't be trusted.
> but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors?
If you’re accepting large false positives rates: yes.
If you want users to take your warnings serious: no.
(Nitpick: you certainly don’t want to flag _all_ of them. Divisions by non-zero constants definitely should be excluded, for example (integer division by -1 can lead to overflow, but that would be a different warning))
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those sneaky LLMs going 7 years into the past and committing as a human: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/commit/8eda3c7f91e1a5b...
It’s obviously Claude 69 with time travel functionality, that’s too dangerous to release to public. They’re working on space-time limiting sandbox to prevent these issues.
Its all fun and games until the Claude-who-remains hunts you down
Re: We found a division by zero bug in FFmpeg with a vibecoded fuzzer
#30What we need is a numeric type that cannot be zero.