On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 02:47:00PM +0300, Eyal Birger wrote: > diff --git a/net/core/lwtunnel.c b/net/core/lwtunnel.c > index 9ccd64e8a666..6fac2f0ef074 100644 > --- a/net/core/lwtunnel.c > +++ b/net/core/lwtunnel.c > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ static const char *lwtunnel_encap_str(enum lwtunnel_encap_types encap_type) > return "IOAM6"; > case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP6: > case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_IP: > + case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_XFRM: > case LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_NONE: > case __LWTUNNEL_ENCAP_MAX: > /* should not have got here */ Eyal, The warning at the bottom can be triggered [1] from user space when the kernel is compiled with CONFIG_MODULES=y and CONFIG_XFRM=n: # ip route add 198.51.100.0/24 dev dummy1 encap xfrm if_id 1 Error: lwt encapsulation type not supported. Original report is from a private syzkaller instance which I have reduced to the command above. Thanks [1] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 2746262 at net/core/lwtunnel.c:57 lwtunnel_valid_encap_type+0x4f/0x120 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> rtm_to_fib_config+0x211/0x350 inet_rtm_newroute+0x3a/0xa0 rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x154/0x3c0 netlink_rcv_skb+0x49/0xf0 netlink_unicast+0x22f/0x350 netlink_sendmsg+0x208/0x440 ____sys_sendmsg+0x21f/0x250 ___sys_sendmsg+0x83/0xd0 __sys_sendmsg+0x54/0xa0 do_syscall_64+0x35/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
