Hi Ido, On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 9:41 AM Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Thanks for the report! Submitted a fix muting the warning for this case. Eyal.
