Fuzz and property-test plan for current parsers

Prioritizes model, tokenizer, manifest, source, HTTP, path, and raw-pointer boundaries using invariants derived from the existing implementation.

Experimental
Last verified
2026-06-25 00:00 UTC
Updated
Reading time
2 minutes

Prioritizes model, tokenizer, manifest, source, HTTP, path, and raw-pointer boundaries using invariants derived from the existing implementation.

Implementation evidence: this topic is grounded in the reviewed GGUF.MiRust.com source snapshot. It documents observed code and artifacts without claiming broad deployment, model quality, or production readiness.

Highest-risk targets

  • SLM header and tensor directory offsets, lengths, overflow, alignment, rank, dtype, duplicates, and checksum.
  • BTOK/BPE1 token lengths, UTF-8 bytes, duplicate IDs, merge references, ranks, and trailing data.
  • Source and provenance line parsers with duplicate, missing, oversized, or ambiguous keys.
  • Percent-decoded HTTP paths, request lines, and root containment.
  • ABI pointer and length combinations available to JavaScript.

Properties

Accepted files never produce out-of-range slices; parser failure is deterministic; pack→parse preserves dimensions and tensor payloads; quantize→dequantize stays within declared tolerance; reset is idempotent; failed generation preserves accepted model identity; and no malformed input panics.

Scope

This starter page defines the questions, boundaries, evidence, and failure modes that should be recorded before a capability is presented as supported.

Engineering considerations

  • Identify the source, version, target environment, and owner.
  • Separate observed values from estimates and externally reported values.
  • Record trade-offs, unsupported cases, and fallback behavior.
  • Link performance statements to a compatible benchmark methodology.

Verification questions

  • What exact artifact, revision, backend, and environment were reviewed?
  • Which assumptions could change the result?
  • Which data should be retained so another engineer can reproduce the conclusion?