On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:22:48PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:08:04 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > - if (!tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_PARMS])
> > + if (!tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_PARMS]) {
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Missing tunnel key parameter");
>
> "parameters" (it's not just one parameter)
>
> > @@ -107,6 +109,7 @@ static int tunnel_key_init(struct net *net, struct
> > nlattr *nla,
> > break;
> > case TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_ACT_SET:
> > if (!tb[TCA_TUNNEL_KEY_ENC_KEY_ID]) {
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Missing tunnel key enc id");
>
> This is not much helpful to the user. What's "enc"? I guess "Missing
> tunnel key id" would be enough and better.
>
> > @@ -144,6 +147,7 @@ static int tunnel_key_init(struct net *net, struct
> > nlattr *nla,
> > 0, flags,
> > key_id, 0);
> > } else {
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Missing both ipv4 and ipv6 enc
> > src and dst");
>
> We don't need both but only one of them. And again, "enc" does not have
> a clear meaning.
>
> "Missing either IPv4 or IPv6 source and destination address"?
Sure, I'll work on making the messages clearer.
> In addition, it makes little sense to me to add extacks to just some of
> the errors in the tunnel_key_init function. Please add extacks to all
> of them.
At the time I wrote the patch I tried to cover those errors that could
result from user-input. I can extend the coverage if that is preferred.
