On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:56 PM, David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/17 8:50 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
>> index 7effa62..49a018f 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/route.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
>> @@ -2763,14 +2763,21 @@ static int inet_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff *in_skb,
>> struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>> if (rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE)
>> table_id = rt->rt_table_id;
>>
>> - if (rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_FIB_MATCH)
>> + if (rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_FIB_MATCH) {
>> + if (!res.fi) {
>> + err = fib_props[res->type].error;
>> + if (!err)
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>
> I think -EHOSTUNREACH is a better error than EINVAL. Nothing about the
> user inputs are invalid; rather the lookup is failing, but indirectly.
I have been going back and forth on this looking at other examples.
I would have preferred ip_route_input_rcu returned the right error
code for this....but i prefer not to touch that given it may break
something else.
EHOSTUNREACH is only returned for RTN_UNREACHABLE routes.
[RTN_UNREACHABLE] = {
.error = -EHOSTUNREACH,
.scope = RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE,
},
In the example i am using it was failing due to a daddr being zero. so
seemed like -EINVAL would fit.
If EHOSTUNREACH can cover most errors, I am fine with changing it to
-EHOSTUNREACH.
