Re: [PATCH v4] net: ipv6: seg6: report lwtunnel setup errors via extack
flat view
From: Gabriel Goller <hidden>
Date: 2026-10-08 11:34:42
Also in:
lkml
On 06.10.2026 17:43, Andrea Mayer wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2026 16:06:34 +0200 Gabriel Goller [off-list ref] wrote: Hi Gabriel, thanks for the v4. +1 to Jakub on _MISS. I also have two comments on the message text.quoted
[snip] switch (tuninfo->mode) { case SEG6_IPTUN_MODE_INLINE: - if (family != AF_INET6) + if (family != AF_INET6) { + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[SEG6_IPTUNNEL_SRH], + "inline mode requires an IPv6 route"); return -EINVAL; + }This message is also returned for an IPv4 nexthop object, where there is no route, for example: ip -4 nexthop add id 1 encap seg6 mode inline segs fc00::1 dev dummy0 What about "inline mode requires the IPv6 address family"?quoted
[snip] /* verify that SRH is consistent */ - if (!seg6_validate_srh(tuninfo->srh, tuninfo_len - sizeof(*tuninfo), false)) + if (!seg6_validate_srh(tuninfo->srh, tuninfo_len - sizeof(*tuninfo), + false)) { + NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb[SEG6_IPTUNNEL_SRH], + "invalid SRv6 segment routing header"); return -EINVAL; + }A nit: the same header is "SRv6 segment routing header" here and "SRv6 SRH" in the other messages of seg6_build_state(). What about using the name from the title of RFC 8754 in the extack messages, for example: "invalid SRv6 segment routing header" -> "invalid IPv6 Segment Routing Header" Thanks, Andrea
Agree with everything Thanks for the review! Gabriel