From 034dd340b08be1f2f0477ad16131d609f9dbd53c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 09:22:00 -0700 Subject: Merge tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace Pull tracing fixes from Steven Rostedt: - Fix error output of boot instance creation failure Currently if a boot instance creation fails, instead of printing out the name of the instance that failed, it prints "(null)". That is because it prints "cur_str" that had already been processed by strsep(). Print the saved name instead. While at it, print the error code of the failure. - Fix use-after-free for same named historgrams Histograms can be named so that they can be used in multiple events. But if the named histogram has a variable attached, the second event that uses the named histogram which duplicates it and needs to free the original after duplication leaves the old variable in place and still visible. If another histogram uses than variable, it will use the stale one which will try to reference the freed duplicate histogram and crash the kernel. Free the duplicate variables along with the duplicated histogram data. - Check return value of kthread_run() in event self test The events self tests uses a kthread for testing but does not check if it succeeded in creating a kthread. If the kthread creation were to fail, the code will still try to call kthread_stop() on the error returned. - Fix race between reading trace_pipe and updating subbuffer size If a user is reading the trace_pipe file at the same time they update the ring buffer sub-buffer size, can cause the trace_pipe read to read stale data. Add trace_access_lock() around updating the ring buffer sub-buffer size. - Fix eventfs_inode on failure path in creation of the events directory In the creation of the "events" directory, if after allocating the eventfs_inode a failure is detected, it calls cleanup_ei() which calls free_ei(). The free_ei() will test if eventfs_inode being freed has no children. It is a bug if it does. But on the failure case of the creation of the "events" directory, the children lists have not yet been initialized and the free will trigger a warning because list_empty() on an uninitialized list returns false. Move the initialization into init_ei() where it makes more sense and makes sure that a created eventfs_inode has its lists initialized upon creation. - Check return value of kthread_run() in ftrace direct sample code The sample code that shows how to use the ftrace direct calls does not test the return of kthread_run() to see if it succeeds. Return a failure if the kthread_run() doesn't succeed. - Clear user events state on fork in case of alloc failure On fork, the child gets a pointer to the parent's user events state. It makes a copy of it then updates the child's pointer to it. But if the allocation fails, the duplication function leaves the child with a pointer to its parent's descriptor. When the child cleans up its data, it will free the parent's descriptor while the parent is still using it. In the duplication function, set the child's user_event_mm to NULL before testing if the allocation succeeded, and when it exits it will not free the parent's descriptor. - Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap simple_ring_buffer_swap_reader_page() starts with retry set to 8 and post-decrements it only after a failed link replacement. On the final attempt, a successful replacement leaves retry at zero, while a failed replacement leaves it at -1. But the check for success expects the retry value to be non-zero and exits with an error on zero. This is the opposite result. Fix it. - Fail nicely when the remote swap_reader_page() returns an error Currently, if the swap_reader_page() of a remote buffer fails, it triggers a WARN_ON_ONCE() and continues normally. Instead, have it exit with an error and a pr_warn() print instead of a full WARNING. * tag 'trace-v7.3-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/trace/linux-trace: ring-buffer: Stop remote reader update when page swap fails tracing: Fix retry exhaustion in simple ring buffer reader swap tracing/user_events: Clear copied tracing state before fork duplication samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-multi-modify samples/ftrace: Fix kthread_stop() on ERR_PTR in ftrace-direct-modify eventfs: Initialize ei->children and ei->list in init_ei() tracing: Fix use-after-free in trace_pipe read on sub-buffer order change tracing: Fix crash passing ERR_PTR to kthread_stop() tracing: Fix use-after-free with same-name named triggers tracing: Fix logged instance name on creation failure --- Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst | 268 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 268 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst (limited to 'Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2c93caea0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/1.Intro.rst @@ -0,0 +1,268 @@ +.. _development_process_intro: + +Introduction +============ + +Executive summary +----------------- + +The rest of this section covers the scope of the kernel development process +and the kinds of frustrations that developers and their employers can +encounter there. There are a great many reasons why kernel code should be +merged into the official ("mainline") kernel, including automatic +availability to users, community support in many forms, and the ability to +influence the direction of kernel development. Code contributed to the +Linux kernel must be made available under a GPL-compatible license. + +:ref:`development_process` introduces the development process, the kernel +release cycle, and the mechanics of the merge window. The various phases in +the patch development, review, and merging cycle are covered. There is some +discussion of tools and mailing lists. Developers wanting to get started +with kernel development are encouraged to track down and fix bugs as an +initial exercise. + +:ref:`development_early_stage` covers early-stage project planning, with an +emphasis on involving the development community as soon as possible. + +:ref:`development_coding` is about the coding process; several pitfalls which +have been encountered by other developers are discussed. Some requirements for +patches are covered, and there is an introduction to some of the tools +which can help to ensure that kernel patches are correct. + +:ref:`development_posting` talks about the process of posting patches for +review. To be taken seriously by the development community, patches must be +properly formatted and described, and they must be sent to the right place. +Following the advice in this section should help to ensure the best +possible reception for your work. + +:ref:`development_followthrough` covers what happens after posting patches; the +job is far from done at that point. Working with reviewers is a crucial part +of the development process; this section offers a number of tips on how to +avoid problems at this important stage. Developers are cautioned against +assuming that the job is done when a patch is merged into the mainline. + +:ref:`development_advancedtopics` introduces a couple of "advanced" topics: +managing patches with git and reviewing patches posted by others. + +:ref:`development_conclusion` concludes the document with pointers to sources +for more information on kernel development. + +What this document is about +--------------------------- + +The Linux kernel, at over 8 million lines of code and well over 1000 +contributors to each release, is one of the largest and most active free +software projects in existence. Since its humble beginning in 1991, this +kernel has evolved into a best-of-breed operating system component which +runs on pocket-sized digital music players, desktop PCs, the largest +supercomputers in existence, and all types of systems in between. It is a +robust, efficient, and scalable solution for almost any situation. + +With the growth of Linux has come an increase in the number of developers +(and companies) wishing to participate in its development. Hardware +vendors want to ensure that Linux supports their products well, making +those products attractive to Linux users. Embedded systems vendors, who +use Linux as a component in an integrated product, want Linux to be as +capable and well-suited to the task at hand as possible. Distributors and +other software vendors who base their products on Linux have a clear +interest in the capabilities, performance, and reliability of the Linux +kernel. And end users, too, will often wish to change Linux to make it +better suit their needs. + +One of the most compelling features of Linux is that it is accessible to +these developers; anybody with the requisite skills can improve Linux and +influence the direction of its development. Proprietary products cannot +offer this kind of openness, which is a characteristic of the free software +process. But, if anything, the kernel is even more open than most other +free software projects. A typical three-month kernel development cycle can +involve over 1000 developers working for more than 100 different companies +(or for no company at all). + +Working with the kernel development community is not especially hard. But, +that notwithstanding, many potential contributors have experienced +difficulties when trying to do kernel work. The kernel community has +evolved its own distinct ways of operating which allow it to function +smoothly (and produce a high-quality product) in an environment where +thousands of lines of code are being changed every day. So it is not +surprising that Linux kernel development process differs greatly from +proprietary development methods. + +The kernel's development process may come across as strange and +intimidating to new developers, but there are good reasons and solid +experience behind it. A developer who does not understand the kernel +community's ways (or, worse, who tries to flout or circumvent them) will +have a frustrating experience in store. The development community, while +being helpful to those who are trying to learn, has little time for those +who will not listen or who do not care about the development process. + +It is hoped that those who read this document will be able to avoid that +frustrating experience. There is a lot of material here, but the effort +involved in reading it will be repaid in short order. The development +community is always in need of developers who will help to make the kernel +better; the following text should help you - or those who work for you - +join our community. + +Credits +------- + +This document was written by Jonathan Corbet, corbet@lwn.net. It has been +improved by comments from Johannes Berg, James Berry, Alex Chiang, Roland +Dreier, Randy Dunlap, Jake Edge, Jiri Kosina, Matt Mackall, Arthur Marsh, +Amanda McPherson, Andrew Morton, Andrew Price, Tsugikazu Shibata, and +Jochen Voß. + +This work was supported by the Linux Foundation; thanks especially to +Amanda McPherson, who saw the value of this effort and made it all happen. + +The importance of getting code into the mainline +------------------------------------------------ + +Some companies and developers occasionally wonder why they should bother +learning how to work with the kernel community and get their code into the +mainline kernel (the "mainline" being the kernel maintained by Linus +Torvalds and used as a base by Linux distributors). In the short term, +contributing code can look like an avoidable expense; it seems easier to +just keep the code separate and support users directly. The truth of the +matter is that keeping code separate ("out of tree") is a false economy. + +As a way of illustrating the costs of out-of-tree code, here are a few +relevant aspects of the kernel development process; most of these will be +discussed in greater detail later in this document. Consider: + +- Code which has been merged into the mainline kernel is available to all + Linux users. It will automatically be present on all distributions which + enable it. There is no need for driver disks, downloads, or the hassles + of supporting multiple versions of multiple distributions; it all just + works, for the developer and for the user. Incorporation into the + mainline solves a large number of distribution and support problems. + +- While kernel developers strive to maintain a stable interface to user + space, the internal kernel API is in constant flux. The lack of a stable + internal interface is a deliberate design decision; it allows fundamental + improvements to be made at any time and results in higher-quality code. + But one result of that policy is that any out-of-tree code requires + constant upkeep if it is to work with new kernels. Maintaining + out-of-tree code requires significant amounts of work just to keep that + code working. + + Code which is in the mainline, instead, does not require this work as the + result of a simple rule requiring any developer who makes an API change + to also fix any code that breaks as the result of that change. So code + which has been merged into the mainline has significantly lower + maintenance costs. + +- Beyond that, code which is in the kernel will often be improved by other + developers. Surprising results can come from empowering your user + community and customers to improve your product. + +- Kernel code is subjected to review, both before and after merging into + the mainline. No matter how strong the original developer's skills are, + this review process invariably finds ways in which the code can be + improved. Often review finds severe bugs and security problems. This is + especially true for code which has been developed in a closed + environment; such code benefits strongly from review by outside + developers. Out-of-tree code is lower-quality code. + +- Participation in the development process is your way to influence the + direction of kernel development. Users who complain from the sidelines + are heard, but active developers have a stronger voice - and the ability + to implement changes which make the kernel work better for their needs. + +- When code is maintained separately, the possibility that a third party + will contribute a different implementation of a similar feature always + exists. Should that happen, getting your code merged will become much + harder - to the point of impossibility. Then you will be faced with the + unpleasant alternatives of either (1) maintaining a nonstandard feature + out of tree indefinitely, or (2) abandoning your code and migrating your + users over to the in-tree version. + +- Contribution of code is the fundamental action which makes the whole + process work. By contributing your code you can add new functionality to + the kernel and provide capabilities and examples which are of use to + other kernel developers. If you have developed code for Linux (or are + thinking about doing so), you clearly have an interest in the continued + success of this platform; contributing code is one of the best ways to + help ensure that success. + +All of the reasoning above applies to any out-of-tree kernel code, +including code which is distributed in proprietary, binary-only form. +There are, however, additional factors which should be taken into account +before considering any sort of binary-only kernel code distribution. These +include: + +- The legal issues around the distribution of proprietary kernel modules + are cloudy at best; quite a few kernel copyright holders believe that + most binary-only modules are derived products of the kernel and that, as + a result, their distribution is a violation of the GNU General Public + License (about which more will be said below). Your author is not a + lawyer, and nothing in this document can possibly be considered to be + legal advice. The true legal status of closed-source modules can only be + determined by the courts. But the uncertainty which haunts those modules + is there regardless. + +- Binary modules greatly increase the difficulty of debugging kernel + problems, to the point that most kernel developers will not even try. So + the distribution of binary-only modules will make it harder for your + users to get support from the community. + +- Support is also harder for distributors of binary-only modules, who must + provide a version of the module for every distribution and every kernel + version they wish to support. Dozens of builds of a single module can + be required to provide reasonably comprehensive coverage, and your users + will have to upgrade your module separately every time they upgrade their + kernel. + +- Everything that was said above about code review applies doubly to + closed-source code. Since this code is not available at all, it cannot + have been reviewed by the community and will, beyond doubt, have serious + problems. + +Makers of embedded systems, in particular, may be tempted to disregard much +of what has been said in this section in the belief that they are shipping +a self-contained product which uses a frozen kernel version and requires no +more development after its release. This argument misses the value of +widespread code review and the value of allowing your users to add +capabilities to your product. But these products, too, have a limited +commercial life, after which a new version must be released. At that +point, vendors whose code is in the mainline and well maintained will be +much better positioned to get the new product ready for market quickly. + +Licensing +--------- + +Code is contributed to the Linux kernel under a number of licenses, but all +code must be compatible with version 2 of the GNU General Public License +(GPLv2), which is the license covering the kernel distribution as a whole. +In practice, that means that all code contributions are covered either by +GPLv2 (with, optionally, language allowing distribution under later +versions of the GPL) or the three-clause BSD license. Any contributions +which are not covered by a compatible license will not be accepted into the +kernel. + +Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed +to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its +original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners. + +One implication of this ownership structure is that any attempt to change +the licensing of the kernel is doomed to almost certain failure. There are +few practical scenarios where the agreement of all copyright holders could +be obtained (or their code removed from the kernel). So, in particular, +there is no prospect of a migration to version 3 of the GPL in the +foreseeable future. + +It is imperative that all code contributed to the kernel be legitimately +free software. For that reason, code from contributors without a known +identity or anonymous contributors will not be accepted. All contributors are +required to "sign off" on their code, stating that the code can be distributed +with the kernel under the GPL. Code which has not been licensed as free +software by its owner, or which risks creating copyright-related problems for +the kernel (such as code which derives from reverse-engineering efforts lacking +proper safeguards) cannot be contributed. + +Questions about copyright-related issues are common on Linux development +mailing lists. Such questions will normally receive no shortage of +answers, but one should bear in mind that the people answering those +questions are not lawyers and cannot provide legal advice. If you have +legal questions relating to Linux source code, there is no substitute for +talking with a lawyer who understands this field. Relying on answers +obtained on technical mailing lists is a risky affair. -- cgit v1.3.1