forked from Minki/linux
cf903e9d3a
A patch documenting how to specify which kernels a particular fix should
be backported to (seemingly) inadvertently added a minus sign after the
kernel version. This particular stable-tag format had never been used
prior to this patch, and was neither present when the patch in question
was first submitted (it was added in v2 without any comment).
Drop the minus sign to avoid any confusion.
Fixes: fdc81b7910 ("stable_kernel_rules: Add clause about specification of kernel versions to patch.")
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
182 lines
6.5 KiB
ReStructuredText
182 lines
6.5 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
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
- If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
|
|
submission guidelines as described in
|
|
Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
|
|
- 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 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:
|
|
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/?p=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:
|
|
|
|
http://git.kernel.org/?p=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.
|