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

[Ignat Korchagin <ignat@cloudflare.com>]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 2:18 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.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