diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 235 |
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. |