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

Message-ID: <20250815011744.GB1302@sol>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:17:44 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Ignat Korchagin <ignat@...udflare.com>
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 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.
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?

- Eric