Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] KFuzzTest: a new kernel fuzzing framework

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

Hi Ethan,

> I wanted to check if this v4 aligns with your previous feedback regarding
> the tight coupling with userspace tools.
> 
> The custom serialization has been removed entirely along with the bridge
> tool. This series now focuses exclusively on passing raw binary inputs
> via debugfs with the FUZZ_TEST_SIMPLE macro.
> 
> The decoupling eliminates any dependency on syzkaller and should help
> remove some of the blockers that you previously encountered when
> considering integration with other fuzzing engines.
> 
> Does this simplified design look closer to what you need?

Thanks for reaching out!

We're doing some changes here and I also need to focus on some WiFi
features, so I don't really know when (if?) I'll continue working on
this, but yes, this definitely aligns much better with what I had in
mind.

FWIW, maybe for new people on the thread, last time I was considering
building ARCH=um in a way that it would run into a (selectable) fuzz
test, fork, and then feed it fuzzer input coming from honggfuzz [1]. I'm
handwaving a bit [2], but this would basically bypass userspace
completely and let us fuzz any of the tests in the kernel with "reset"
for each fuzzing round.

[1] selected because it's compatible with what the kernel does now with
kcov for coverage feedback, afl++ currently cannot deal with this for
some reason

[2] because I hadn't quite figured out how to make UML a single thread
only and get rid of the userspace running inside of it


Regardless, definitely yes, I think the design is much simpler and even
if I don't end up integrating honggfuzz this specific way, I do believe
it will make it much simpler (and more performant) to integrate with
other fuzzers.

johannes