Adding upstream version 6.6.15.upstream/6.6.15

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 235 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..41f1e07abf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,235 @@
+.. _stable_kernel_rules:
+
+Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
+===============================================================
+
+Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
+"-stable" tree:
+
+ - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
+ - It must be obviously correct and tested.
+ - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
+ - It must follow the
+   :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
+   rules.
+ - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
+   To elaborate on the former:
+
+   - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
+     issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
+     CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue.
+   - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
+     be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
+     As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
+     regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
+     maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
+     exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
+   - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race
+     condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also
+     provided.
+   - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace
+     cleanups, etc).
+
+
+Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
+----------------------------------------------------
+
+.. note::
+
+   Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
+   process but should follow the procedures in
+   :ref:`Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
+
+There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
+
+ 1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you then submit for
+    mainline inclusion.
+ 2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
+ 3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a change already
+    mainlined.
+
+The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
+
+:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.
+:ref:`option_2` is mainly meant for changes where backporting was not considered
+at the time of submission. :ref:`option_3` is an alternative to the two earlier
+options for cases where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older
+series (for example due to API changes).
+
+When using option 2 or 3 you can ask for your change to be included in specific
+stable series. When doing so, ensure the fix or an equivalent is applicable,
+submitted, or already present in all newer stable trees still supported. This is
+meant to prevent regressions that users might later encounter on updating, if
+e.g. a fix merged for 5.19-rc1 would be backported to 5.10.y, but not to 5.15.y.
+
+.. _option_1:
+
+Option 1
+********
+
+To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later automatically picked up
+for stable trees, add the tag
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
+
+in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the
+stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or
+subsystem maintainer.
+
+To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline
+comment:
+
+ * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the
+   following format in the sign-off area:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
+     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
+
+   The tag sequence has the meaning of:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     git cherry-pick a1f84a3
+     git cherry-pick 1b9508f
+     git cherry-pick fd21073
+     git cherry-pick <this commit>
+
+ * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using
+   the following format in the sign-off area:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
+
+   The tag has the meaning of:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     git cherry-pick <this commit>
+
+   For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
+
+   Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
+   appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
+
+ * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
+
+ * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example
+   can be used to point out known problems:
+
+   .. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3
+
+.. _option_2:
+
+Option 2
+********
+
+If the patch already has been merged to mainline, send an email to
+stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
+why you think it should be applied, and what kernel versions you wish it to
+be applied to.
+
+.. _option_3:
+
+Option 3
+********
+
+Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
+stable@vger.kernel.org and mention the kernel versions you wish it to be applied
+to. When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your
+submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    commit <sha1> upstream.
+
+or alternatively:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+    [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
+
+If the submitted patch deviates from the original upstream patch (for example
+because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must be very clearly
+documented and justified in the patch description.
+
+
+Following the submission
+------------------------
+
+The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
+queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected.  This response might take a few
+days, according to the schedules of the stable team members.
+
+If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other
+developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+
+
+Review cycle
+------------
+
+ - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be
+   sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of
+   the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to
+   the linux-kernel mailing list.
+ - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch.
+ - If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel
+   members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and
+   members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue.
+ - The ACKed patches will be posted again as part of release candidate (-rc)
+   to be tested by developers and testers.
+ - Usually only one -rc release is made, however if there are any outstanding
+   issues, some patches may be modified or dropped or additional patches may
+   be queued. Additional -rc releases are then released and tested until no
+   issues are found.
+ - Responding to the -rc releases can be done on the mailing list by sending
+   a "Tested-by:" email with any testing information desired. The "Tested-by:"
+   tags will be collected and added to the release commit.
+ - At the end of the review cycle, the new -stable release will be released
+   containing all the queued and tested patches.
+ - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from the
+   security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
+   Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
+
+
+Trees
+-----
+
+ - The queues of patches, for both completed versions and in progress
+   versions can be found at:
+
+	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
+
+ - The finalized and tagged releases of all stable kernels can be found
+   in separate branches per version at:
+
+	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
+
+ - The release candidate of all stable kernel versions can be found at:
+
+        https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git/
+
+   .. warning::
+      The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue tree and
+      will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should only be
+      used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
+
+
+Review committee
+----------------
+
+ - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
+   this task, and a few that haven't.