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