Building Confidence Through Rigorous Testing

A Raven VM Case Study

When revisiting the Raven project - a Rust implementation of the Uxn virtual machine - after several months dormant, the engineering team implemented three key testing strategies to ensure robustness across implementations. Here's what made this effort successful:

Fuzz Testing: Hunting Hidden Demons

What it is: Automated generation of random, invalid inputs to probe for crashes, hangs, or behavioral discrepancies between implementations.

Why it matters:

• Found three critical opcode discrepancies between Rust and hand-optimized assembly implementations
• Guarantees 66,306-byte state consistency (RAM, stacks, devices) between baseline and native interpreters
• Discovered edge cases that escaped hundreds of conventional unit tests

The team used cargo-fuzz with this test harness:

#[test]
fn fuzz_rom() {
    let rom = generate_random_rom();
    let baseline = run_baseline_interpreter(&rom);
    let native = run_native_assembly_interpreter(&rom);
    assert_eq!(baseline.ram, native.ram); // 64KiB RAM
    assert_eq!(baseline.stacks, native.stacks); // 512B stack state
}

Key implementation details:

• Input generation: Random ROMs with instruction sequences
• Safety nets: Instruction count limits prevent infinite loops
• Minimization: cargo fuzz tmin reduces failing cases to minimal reproducible examples

Compile-Time Panic Prevention

A novel Rust technique ensures zero runtime panics in critical paths:

#[inline(never)]
fn div_no_panic(data: &[u8]) {
    struct NoPanic; // Links to non-existent function on panic
    let guard = NoPanic;
    // ...VM operations...
    core::mem::forget(guard); // Only reached if no panic
}

How it works:

1. Panic unwinding would call destructor linking to undefined symbol
2. Successful execution skips destructor via explicit forget
3. Release builds fail linking if panic paths exist

This compile-time proof covers all 60+ opcode handlers through macro-generated tests.

Cross-Platform Validation

The CI pipeline validates correctness across environments:

Snapshot testing revealed unexpected interactions - simulated mouse/keyboard input changed visual states, caught through automated image comparisons against reference renders.

When To Apply These Techniques

1. Security-critical systems where panics equal vulnerabilities
2. Multiple implementations needing bit-perfect matching
3. Legacy systems without comprehensive spec coverage

The result? A VM that's:

• 50% faster than reference C implementation
• Provably panic-free via compile-time checks
• Behaviorally identical across Rust/assembly backends

As the team notes: "While fuzzing made our laptops sweat, finding those three opcode discrepancies made the CPU cycles worthwhile. These methods transform 'probably works' into 'proven correct' - exactly what we want in low-level systems."

This approach demonstrates how combining fuzzing, formal proofs, and aggressive CI can elevate software reliability. The techniques translate particularly well to emulators, parsers, and safety-critical systems where "close enough" isn't good enough.

Reference and thanks for the original article to Matt Keeter: Guided by the beauty of our test suite