|  | .. _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 | 
|  | :ref:`Documentation/networking/netdev-FAQ.rst <netdev-FAQ>` | 
|  | after first checking the stable networking queue at | 
|  | https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/davem/stable/?series=&submitter=&state=*&q=&archive= | 
|  | to ensure the requested patch is not already queued up. | 
|  | - 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: | 
|  |  | 
|  | 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. |