After a recent discussion regarding "do we need a 'nobackport' tag" I set out to create one change for stable-kernel-rules.rst. This is now the last patch in the series, which links to that discussion with all the details; the other stuff is fine-tuning that happened along the way.
Ciao, Thorsten --- v1->v2: * Add reviewed-by tag from Greg to the first patch. * Change the backport example in 2 as suggested by Greg. * Improve description of patch 3 while also making the change remove a level of indenting. * Add patch explaining stable@kernel.org (w/o @vger.) * Move the patch adding a 'make AUTOSEL et. al. ignore a change' flag to the end of the series and use stable+noautosel@kernel.org as suggested my Konstantin and ACKed by Greg.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712812895.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
Thorsten Leemhuis (5): docs: stable-kernel-rules: reduce redundancy docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example docs: stable-kernel-rules: remove code-labels tags and a indention level docs: stable-kernel-rules: explain use of stable@kernel.org (w/o @vger.) docs: stable-kernel-rules: create special tag to flag 'no backporting'
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 234 ++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
base-commit: 5eb4573ea63d0c83bf58fb7c243fc2c2b6966c02
Explain the general concept once in the intro to keep things somewhat shorter in the individual points.
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 13 +++++-------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index 1704f1c686d0a8..0da9c57287c134 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -79,10 +79,9 @@ stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer.
To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline -comment: +comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
- * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the - following format in the sign-off area: + * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking:
.. code-block:: none
@@ -114,8 +113,7 @@ comment: prerequisite of patch2 if you have already marked patch1 for stable inclusion.
- * For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using - the following format in the sign-off area: + * Point out kernel version prerequisites:
.. code-block:: none
@@ -132,14 +130,13 @@ comment: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
- * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format: + * Delay pick up of patches:
.. code-block:: none
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after 4 weeks in mainline
- * For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example - can be used to point out known problems: + * Point out known problems:
.. code-block:: none
Fine-tuning:
* s/Linus' tree/Linux mainline/, as mainline is the term used elsewhere in the document.
* Provide a better example for the 'delayed backporting' case that uses a fixed rather than a relative reference point, which makes it easier to handle for the stable team.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index 0da9c57287c134..d28072b570f872 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ 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 or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream). + - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linux mainline (upstream). - It must be obviously correct and tested. - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. - It must follow the @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
.. code-block:: none
- Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after -rc3
* Point out known problems:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:27AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Fine-tuning:
s/Linus' tree/Linux mainline/, as mainline is the term used elsewhere in the document.
Provide a better example for the 'delayed backporting' case that uses a fixed rather than a relative reference point, which makes it easier to handle for the stable team.
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Remove the 'code-block:: none' labels and switch to the shorter '::' to reduce noise.
Remove a unneeded level of indentation, as that reduces the chance that readers have to scroll sideways in some of the code blocks.
No text changes. Rendered html output looks like before, except for the different level of indentation.
CC: Jonathan Corbet corbet@lwn.net Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 225 ++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index d28072b570f872..b4af627154f1d8 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -6,29 +6,29 @@ 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 or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linux mainline (upstream). - - It must be obviously correct and tested. - - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. - - It must follow the - :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` - rules. - - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. - To elaborate on the former: - - - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security - issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked - CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. - - 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. - - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race - condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also - provided. - - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace - cleanups, etc). +- It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linux mainline (upstream). +- It must be obviously correct and tested. +- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. +- It must follow the + :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>` + rules. +- It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. + To elaborate on the former: + + - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security + issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked + CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. + - 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. + - No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race + condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also + provided. + - No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace + cleanups, etc).
Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree @@ -42,11 +42,11 @@ Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:
- 1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you then submit for - mainline inclusion. - 2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined. - 3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a change already - mainlined. +1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you then submit for + mainline inclusion. +2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined. +3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a change already + mainlined.
The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.
@@ -68,79 +68,62 @@ Option 1 ********
To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later automatically picked up -for stable trees, add the tag +for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area::
-.. code-block:: none + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
- Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org - -in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the -stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or -subsystem maintainer. +Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the stable tree without +anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer.
To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
- * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking: - - .. 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 +* Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking::
- git cherry-pick a1f84a3 - git cherry-pick 1b9508f - git cherry-pick fd21073 - git cherry-pick <this commit> + 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
- Note that for a patch series, you do not have to list as prerequisites the - patches present in the series itself. For example, if you have the following - patch series: + 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>
- patch1 - patch2 + Note that for a patch series, you do not have to list as prerequisites the + patches present in the series itself. For example, if you have the following + patch series::
- where patch2 depends on patch1, you do not have to list patch1 as - prerequisite of patch2 if you have already marked patch1 for stable - inclusion. + patch1 + patch2
- * Point out kernel version prerequisites: + where patch2 depends on patch1, you do not have to list patch1 as + prerequisite of patch2 if you have already marked patch1 for stable + inclusion.
- .. code-block:: none +* Point out kernel version prerequisites::
- Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.3.x + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.3.x
- The tag has the meaning of: + The tag has the meaning of::
- .. code-block:: none + git cherry-pick <this commit>
- git cherry-pick <this commit> + For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
- For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version. + Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the + appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
- Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the - appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. +* Delay pick up of patches::
- * Delay pick up of patches: + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after -rc3
- .. code-block:: none +* Point out known problems::
- Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after -rc3 - - * Point out known problems: - - .. code-block:: none - - Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3 + Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3
.. _option_2:
@@ -160,17 +143,13 @@ Option 3 Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to stable@vger.kernel.org and mention the kernel versions you wish it to be applied to. When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your -submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this: - -.. code-block:: none - - commit <sha1> upstream. +submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this::
-or alternatively: + commit <sha1> upstream.
-.. code-block:: none +Or alternatively::
- [ Upstream commit <sha1> ] + [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
If the submitted patch deviates from the original upstream patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must be very clearly @@ -191,55 +170,55 @@ 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. +- 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: +- 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 + 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: +- 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 + https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git
- - The release candidate of all stable kernel versions can be found at: +- 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/ + 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). + .. 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. +- This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for + this task, and a few that haven't.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:28AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Remove the 'code-block:: none' labels and switch to the shorter '::' to reduce noise.
Remove a unneeded level of indentation, as that reduces the chance that readers have to scroll sideways in some of the code blocks.
No text changes. Rendered html output looks like before, except for the different level of indentation.
CC: Jonathan Corbet corbet@lwn.net Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Document when to use of stable@kernel.org instead of stable@vger.kernel.org, as the two are easily mixed up and their difference not explained anywhere[1].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422231550.3cf5f723@sal.lan/ [1] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index b4af627154f1d8..ebf4152659f2d0 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area::
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
+Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities: +it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of +'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere. + Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Document when to use of stable@kernel.org instead of stable@vger.kernel.org, as the two are easily mixed up and their difference not explained anywhere[1].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422231550.3cf5f723@sal.lan/ [1] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index b4af627154f1d8..ebf4152659f2d0 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area:: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org +Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities: +it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of +'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.
The "fun" part of just saying this is that then it is a huge "signal" to others that "hey, this might be a security fix!" when it lands in Linus's tree. But hey, we do what we can, I know my scripts always use this address just to put a bit more noise into that signal :)
That being said, it's good to have this documented now, thanks for it:
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
On 29.04.24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Document when to use of stable@kernel.org instead of stable@vger.kernel.org, as the two are easily mixed up and their difference not explained anywhere[1].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422231550.3cf5f723@sal.lan/ [1] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index b4af627154f1d8..ebf4152659f2d0 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area:: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org +Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities: +it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of +'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.
The "fun" part of just saying this is that then it is a huge "signal" to others that "hey, this might be a security fix!" when it lands in Linus's tree. But hey, we do what we can, I know my scripts always use this address just to put a bit more noise into that signal :)
Yeah, that's likely true. :-D
FWIW, we could stay more vague here and use a text like """Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing something that should be kept private for the timing being: it will prevent the change for accidentally being exposed to the public through 'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere."""
The sign would not be that huge anymore, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.
That being said, it's good to have this documented now, thanks for it:
yw!
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Many thx for your feedback to this and the other patches. Do you want to pick those up (last time I changes something in that text that was the case) or let Jonathan handle them?
Ciao, Thorsten
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 29.04.24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Document when to use of stable@kernel.org instead of stable@vger.kernel.org, as the two are easily mixed up and their difference not explained anywhere[1].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240422231550.3cf5f723@sal.lan/ [1] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index b4af627154f1d8..ebf4152659f2d0 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area:: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org +Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing unpublished vulnerabilities: +it reduces the chance of accidentally exposing the fix to the public by way of +'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere.
The "fun" part of just saying this is that then it is a huge "signal" to others that "hey, this might be a security fix!" when it lands in Linus's tree. But hey, we do what we can, I know my scripts always use this address just to put a bit more noise into that signal :)
Yeah, that's likely true. :-D
FWIW, we could stay more vague here and use a text like """Use ``Cc: stable@kernel.org`` instead when fixing something that should be kept private for the timing being: it will prevent the change for accidentally being exposed to the public through 'git send-email', as mails sent to that address are not delivered anywhere."""
The sign would not be that huge anymore, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.
Yeah, let's leave this as-is for now.
That being said, it's good to have this documented now, thanks for it:
yw!
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Many thx for your feedback to this and the other patches. Do you want to pick those up (last time I changes something in that text that was the case) or let Jonathan handle them?
Which ever Jonathan finds easier is fine for me.
thanks,
greg k-h
Document a new variant of the stable tag developers can use to make the stable team's tools ignore a change[1].
That way developers can use 'Fixes:' tags without fearing the changes might be backported in semi-automatic fashion. Such concerns are the reason why some developers deliberately omit the 'Fixes:' tag in changes[2] -- which somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of that tag and might be unwise in the long term[3].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.in... [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@secunet.com/ [2] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@leemhuis.in... [3] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
---
A patch to make one of the stable-script honor the flag can be found in https://lore.kernel.org/all/655ce2a3-eb04-4ade-999e-23fc5dc5fb3a@leemhuis.in...
For autosel I was unable to locate the code. --- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index ebf4152659f2d0..9ca8083b41c7f1 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -129,6 +129,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3
+There furthermore is a variant of the stable tag you can use to make the stable +team's backporting tools (e.g AUTOSEL or scripts that look for commits +containing a 'Fixes:' tag) ignore a change:: + + Cc: stable+noautosel@kernel.org # reason goes here, and must be present + .. _option_2:
Option 2
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:18:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Document a new variant of the stable tag developers can use to make the stable team's tools ignore a change[1].
That way developers can use 'Fixes:' tags without fearing the changes might be backported in semi-automatic fashion. Such concerns are the reason why some developers deliberately omit the 'Fixes:' tag in changes[2] -- which somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of that tag and might be unwise in the long term[3].
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.in... [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@secunet.com/ [2] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@leemhuis.in... [3] Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info
A patch to make one of the stable-script honor the flag can be found in https://lore.kernel.org/all/655ce2a3-eb04-4ade-999e-23fc5dc5fb3a@leemhuis.in...
For autosel I was unable to locate the code.
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst index ebf4152659f2d0..9ca8083b41c7f1 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst @@ -129,6 +129,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3 +There furthermore is a variant of the stable tag you can use to make the stable +team's backporting tools (e.g AUTOSEL or scripts that look for commits +containing a 'Fixes:' tag) ignore a change::
Cc: <stable+noautosel@kernel.org> # reason goes here, and must be present.. _option_2:
Thanks for seeing this through:
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Thorsten Leemhuis linux@leemhuis.info writes:
After a recent discussion regarding "do we need a 'nobackport' tag" I set out to create one change for stable-kernel-rules.rst. This is now the last patch in the series, which links to that discussion with all the details; the other stuff is fine-tuning that happened along the way.
I've applied the set, thanks.
jon
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg Kroah-Hartman -
Jonathan Corbet -
Thorsten Leemhuis