linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 RFC 6/6] crypto: implement KFuzzTest targets for PKCS7 and RSA parsing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALrw=nHcpDNwOV6ROGsXq8TtaPNGC4kGf_5YDTfVs2U1+wjRhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:00:37 +0100
From: Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Ethan Graham <ethan.w.s.graham@...il.com>, ethangraham@...gle.com, 
	glider@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com, brendan.higgins@...ux.dev, 
	davidgow@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com, rmoar@...gle.com, 
	shuah@...nel.org, tarasmadan@...gle.com, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, 
	kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, 
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 RFC 6/6] crypto: implement KFuzzTest targets for PKCS7
 and RSA parsing

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 2:18 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 04:28:13PM +0100, Ignat Korchagin wrote:
> > Not sure if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but one thing I already
> > don't like about it is that these definitions "pollute" the actual
> > source files. Might not be such a big deal here, but kernel source
> > files for core subsystems tend to become quite large and complex
> > already, so not a great idea to make them even larger and harder to
> > follow with fuzz definitions.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, for the same reason KUnit [1] is not that popular
> > (or at least less popular than other approaches, like selftests [2]).
> > Is it possible to make it that these definitions live in separate
> > files or even closer to selftests?
>
> That's not the impression I get.  KUnit suites are normally defined in
> separate files, and KUnit seems to be increasing in popularity.

Great! Either I was wrong from the start or it changed and I haven't
looked there recently.

> KFuzzTest can use separate files too, it looks like?
>
> Would it make any sense for fuzz tests to be a special type of KUnit
> test, instead of a separate framework?

I think so, if possible. There is always some hurdles adopting new
framework, but if it would be a new feature of an existing one (either
KUnit or selftests - whatever fits better semantically), the existing
users of that framework are more likely to pick it up.

> - Eric