stable_kernel_rules.txt 6.5 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182
  1. .. _stable_kernel_rules:
  2. Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
  3. ===============================================================
  4. Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
  5. "-stable" tree:
  6. - It must be obviously correct and tested.
  7. - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
  8. - It must fix only one thing.
  9. - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
  10. problem..." type thing).
  11. - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
  12. marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
  13. security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
  14. critical.
  15. - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
  16. be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
  17. As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
  18. regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
  19. maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
  20. exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
  21. - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
  22. - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
  23. race can be exploited is also provided.
  24. - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
  25. whitespace cleanups, etc).
  26. - It must follow the
  27. :ref:`Documentation/SubmittingPatches <submittingpatches>`
  28. rules.
  29. - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
  30. Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
  31. ----------------------------------------------------
  32. - If the patch covers files in net/ or drivers/net please follow netdev stable
  33. submission guidelines as described in
  34. Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.txt
  35. - Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review
  36. process but should follow the procedures in
  37. :ref:`Documentation/SecurityBugs <securitybugs>`.
  38. For all other submissions, choose one of the following procedures
  39. -----------------------------------------------------------------
  40. .. _option_1:
  41. Option 1
  42. ********
  43. To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
  44. .. code-block:: none
  45. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
  46. in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
  47. the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
  48. or subsystem maintainer.
  49. .. _option_2:
  50. Option 2
  51. ********
  52. After the patch has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to
  53. stable@vger.kernel.org containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID,
  54. why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to
  55. be applied to.
  56. .. _option_3:
  57. Option 3
  58. ********
  59. Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
  60. stable@vger.kernel.org. You must note the upstream commit ID in the
  61. changelog of your submission, as well as the kernel version you wish
  62. it to be applied to.
  63. :ref:`option_1` is **strongly** preferred, is the easiest and most common.
  64. :ref:`option_2` and :ref:`option_3` are more useful if the patch isn't deemed
  65. worthy at the time it is applied to a public git tree (for instance, because
  66. it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:`option_3` is especially
  67. useful if the patch needs some special handling to apply to an older kernel
  68. (e.g., if API's have changed in the meantime).
  69. Note that for :ref:`option_3`, if the patch deviates from the original
  70. upstream patch (for example because it had to be backported) this must be very
  71. clearly documented and justified in the patch description.
  72. The upstream commit ID must be specified with a separate line above the commit
  73. text, like this:
  74. .. code-block:: none
  75. commit <sha1> upstream.
  76. Additionally, some patches submitted via Option 1 may have additional patch
  77. prerequisites which can be cherry-picked. This can be specified in the following
  78. format in the sign-off area:
  79. .. code-block:: none
  80. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
  81. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
  82. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
  83. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
  84. Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
  85. The tag sequence has the meaning of:
  86. .. code-block:: none
  87. git cherry-pick a1f84a3
  88. git cherry-pick 1b9508f
  89. git cherry-pick fd21073
  90. git cherry-pick <this commit>
  91. Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites. This can be
  92. specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
  93. .. code-block:: none
  94. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
  95. The tag has the meaning of:
  96. .. code-block:: none
  97. git cherry-pick <this commit>
  98. For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
  99. Following the submission:
  100. - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
  101. queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few
  102. days, according to the developer's schedules.
  103. - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by
  104. other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
  105. Review cycle
  106. ------------
  107. - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be
  108. sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of
  109. the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to
  110. the linux-kernel mailing list.
  111. - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch.
  112. - If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel
  113. members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and
  114. members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue.
  115. - At the end of the review cycle, the ACKed patches will be added to the
  116. latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen.
  117. - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from the
  118. security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
  119. Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
  120. Trees
  121. -----
  122. - The queues of patches, for both completed versions and in progress
  123. versions can be found at:
  124. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git
  125. - The finalized and tagged releases of all stable kernels can be found
  126. in separate branches per version at:
  127. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git
  128. Review committee
  129. ----------------
  130. - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
  131. this task, and a few that haven't.