179 lines
6.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
179 lines
6.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _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 must be obviously correct and tested.
|
|
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
|
|
- It must fix only one thing.
|
|
- It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
|
|
problem..." type thing).
|
|
- It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
|
|
marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
|
|
security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
|
|
critical.
|
|
- 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.
|
|
- New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
|
|
- No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
|
|
race can be exploited is also provided.
|
|
- It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
|
|
whitespace cleanups, etc).
|
|
- It must follow the
|
|
:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
|
|
rules.
|
|
- It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
- Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
|
|
process but should follow the procedures in
|
|
:ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>`.
|
|
|
|
For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
.. _option_1:
|
|
|
|
Option 1
|
|
********
|
|
|
|
To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: none
|
|
|
|
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
|
|
|
|
in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
|
|
the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
|
|
or subsystem maintainer.
|
|
|
|
.. _option_2:
|
|
|
|
Option 2
|
|
********
|
|
|
|
After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, 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 version 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. You must note the upstream commit ID in the
|
|
changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
|
|
it to be applied to.
|
|
|
|
:ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
|
|
:ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
|
|
worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
|
|
it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
|
|
useful if the patch needs some special handling to apply to an older kernel
|
|
(e.g., if API's have changed in the meantime).
|
|
|
|
Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
|
|
upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
|
|
clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
|
|
|
|
The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
|
|
text, like this:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: none
|
|
|
|
commit <sha1> upstream.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, some patches submitted via :ref:`option_1` may have additional
|
|
patch prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in 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>
|
|
|
|
Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites. This can be
|
|
specified in 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.
|
|
|
|
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 developer's schedules.
|
|
- 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.
|
|
- At the end of the review cycle, the ACKed patches will be added to the
|
|
latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen.
|
|
- 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-stable.git
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review committee
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
- This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
|
|
this task, and a few that haven't.
|