From: Yuyang Huang <sigefriedhyy@gmail.com>
To: Yuyang Huang <sigefriedhyy@gmail.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@meta.com>,
Chris J Arges <carges@cloudflare.com>,
Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, David Wei <dw@davidwei.uk>,
Dimitri Daskalakis <dimitri.daskalakis1@gmail.com>,
Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@gmail.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@nvidia.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next 0/2] ipv6: report why a route was deleted in RTM_DELROUTE
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 07:23:25 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260717222327.7398-1-sigefriedhyy@gmail.com> (raw)
When the kernel deletes an IPv6 route on its own, the RTM_DELROUTE
notification does not say why. User space cannot tell a route that
expired from one the router explicitly withdrew, yet the two call for
different reactions: an expired RA route means the router failed to
refresh it in time, which points at a misconfigured or unreliable
router and may warrant action such as disabling IPv6 on that network,
while a zero-lifetime withdrawal is normal, RFC-compliant operation.
Patch 1 adds RTA_DEL_REASON (u8) to RTM_DELROUTE notifications and
records the cause in the kernel-initiated IPv6 deletion paths:
RTA_DEL_REASON_EXPIRED for routes garbage collected after their
RTF_EXPIRES lifetime ran out, and RTA_DEL_REASON_RA_WITHDRAWN for
default routes, prefix routes and RFC 4191 route information routes
withdrawn by Router Advertisements. The rt-route Netlink spec is
extended with the attribute, the route notifications and their
multicast groups.
Only kernel-initiated deletions that user space cannot otherwise
explain are attributed. User-requested deletions are self-explanatory
to the requester, so they carry no reason; the UAPI documents that
absence and RTA_DEL_REASON_UNSPEC must be treated identically, which
keeps the door open for attributing more paths (nexthop removal
cascades, device removal) later.
Patch 2 adds selftests covering all three producer paths: a GC-expired
route, and a default route + PIO prefix route + RIO route advertised
and then withdrawn by hand-crafted RAs over a raw ICMPv6 socket (no
external RA tool needed), plus a check that user-requested deletions
carry no attribute. The notifications are decoded with YNL, which also
exercises the rt-route spec additions.
Yuyang Huang (2):
ipv6: report why a route was deleted in RTM_DELROUTE
selftests: net: verify RTA_DEL_REASON on route deletion
Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml | 33 ++++
include/net/ip6_fib.h | 4 +-
include/net/ip6_route.h | 2 +
include/uapi/linux/rtnetlink.h | 17 ++
net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 3 +-
net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c | 19 +-
net/ipv6/ndisc.c | 7 +-
net/ipv6/route.c | 66 ++++---
.../testing/selftests/net/lib/py/__init__.py | 4 +-
tools/testing/selftests/net/lib/py/ynl.py | 7 +-
tools/testing/selftests/net/rtnetlink.py | 181 +++++++++++++++++-
11 files changed, 303 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 22:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-17 22:23 Yuyang Huang [this message]
2026-07-17 22:23 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] ipv6: report why a route was deleted in RTM_DELROUTE Yuyang Huang
2026-07-17 22:23 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftests: net: verify RTA_DEL_REASON on route deletion Yuyang Huang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260717222327.7398-1-sigefriedhyy@gmail.com \
--to=sigefriedhyy@gmail.com \
--cc=bobbyeshleman@meta.com \
--cc=carges@cloudflare.com \
--cc=daniel.zahka@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dimitri.daskalakis1@gmail.com \
--cc=donald.hunter@gmail.com \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=dw@davidwei.uk \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=gal@nvidia.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox