I don't think it's plausible OSS-Fuzz could have found this. The backdoor required a build configuration that was not used in OSS-Fuzz.
I'm guessing "Jia Tan" knew this and made changes to XZ's use of OSS-Fuzz for the purposes of cementing their position as the new maintainer of XZ, rather than out of worry OSS-Fuzz would find the backdoor as people have speculated.
How many oss-fuzz packages have a Dockerfile that runs apt-get install liblzma-dev first?
Had this not been discovered, the backdoored version of xz could have eventually ended up in the ubuntu version oss-fuzz uses for its docker image - and linked into all those packages being tested as well.
Except now there's an explanation if fuzzing starts to fail - honggfuzz uses -fsanitize which is incompatible with xz's use of ifunc, so any package that depends on it should rebuild xz from source with --disable-ifunc instead of using the binary package.
This is interesting, but do you think this would have aroused enough suspicion to find the backdoor (after every Ubuntu user was owned by it)? I don't see why this is the case. It wasn't a secret that ifuncs were being used in XZ.
And if that's the case, it was sloppy of "Jia" to disable it in OSS-Fuzz and not do this:
to the XZ source code to fix the false positive and turn off the compilation warning, no attention would have been drawn to this at all since no one would have to change their build script.
With or without this PR, it's very unlikely OSS-Fuzz would have found the bug. OSS-Fuzz also happens to be on Ubuntu 20. I'm not very familiar with Ubuntu release cycles, but I think it would have been a very long time before backdoored packages made their way into Ubuntu 20.
I don't think we have plans to build this for now.
I find it a really cool idea, but for now, running fuzzers natively on Google Cloud with ClusterFuzz (https://github.com/google/clusterfuzz) suits our needs.
One challenge for the WASM approach is it will always be at least as hard to build a project for WASM as it is for native.
Right I think WASM offers some nice advantages over native for distributed fuzzing.
It's also worth pointing out that Mozilla made a (non-WASM) distributed fuzzing project, virgo: https://github.com/MozillaSecurity/virgo
but it appears to be inactive.
I haven't done a comprehensive study of this but in general I find that fuzzing programs in different environments (e.g. CPU architectures, OSes) tends to find some bugs that won't be found by fuzzing in just one environment.
But in general, I agree a lot of the bugs in WASM apps could be found by fuzzing their native versions.