Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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withdrawn by Router Advertisements.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


             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