| .. _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 |
| ---------------------------------------------------- |
| |
| .. 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>`. |
| |
| 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 original upstream patch needs to be backported (for example |
| the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes). |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| or alternatively: |
| |
| .. code-block:: none |
| |
| [ Upstream commit <sha1> ] |
| |
| 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. |
| - 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. |