Three Months in the Linux Kernel Bug Fixing Program
Lessons in preparation, persistence, and working in the open
In June, I entered the Linux Kernel Bug Fixing Program — part of the Linux Foundation’s mentorship track. After more than twenty years as a software engineer, this was my first opportunity to contribute directly to the kernel. The program runs for three months full-time, with a half-time option spanning 24 weeks. Graduation requires meeting a high standard: multiple accepted patches, a written reflection, and a final report. For me, it was more than a checklist — it was a step into a world I had long admired from the outside, but never joined.
My career until now had been in proprietary, closed projects. They brought challenges, collaboration, and achievement, but the results were hidden within company walls, anonymous to the outside world. Once I left an employer, my part was complete and the work moved on without me. I valued those projects, but I missed seeing the full life cycle of my contributions. Everything was an exchange of work for payment.
Linux is different. The community stands out for both skill and communication, and its work is public — reviewed, discussed, and carried forward by others. While I focused on my own projects, Linux kept growing in a world apart from mine. I had long used Linux professionally, but the kernel itself always felt distant, almost mythical. There was a clear gap between what I knew, what I didn’t, and what I hoped to learn. I understood Linux as a user and as a C programmer, but I didn’t yet know how to configure, build, or test the kernel — or how to participate in its community. This program was my chance to bridge that gap.
The first lesson was pace. At our opening session, Shuah Khan, the program’s mentor, advised: “Start slow. Build credibility.” That became a foundation. I learned that preparation is as important as execution. Setting up a stable environment — choosing an editor, establishing a reliable build configuration, and enabling compile commands for indexing — saved time and mental energy once I was in the code.
Office Hours with Shuah and fellow mentees added another layer of learning. Open Q&A sessions revealed perspectives I hadn’t considered, and the mentee mailing list kept everyone connected. Sharing patches there made it possible to follow each other’s progress and learn from the different approaches being taken. Watching how others worked was as valuable as doing the work myself.
I began not by sending patches, but by tracing accepted ones. Reading mailing list discussions, Syzbot reports, and commit histories taught me how issues are reported, reviewed, and resolved. It also showed me that testing is never an afterthought. The kernel carries its own testing frameworks — kselftest and KUnit — living alongside the code they verify.
My first patches were small, but they taught me discipline. Even a one-line change requires a clear commit message, correct formatting, and respect for review. I also learned that crash reports are just starting points. The real answers come from reproductions, logs, and reading the code in context.
Running Syzbot reproducers locally became a bridge between theory and practice. They confirmed bugs, validated fixes, and revealed how subsystems behave under stress. Some patches were accepted quickly, others were revised, and some received no response at all. I came to see rejections and silence not as setbacks, but as part of the process.
I keep asking how this project has sustained itself for so many years. The answer seems to lie in continuity. Starting something new is exciting, but the deeper lessons come from continuing — through investigation, revision, and review cycles. That persistence is what changes both the code and the contributor.
Life is too good not to pursue what is worth doing and where interest runs deep. This program has been a strong beginning, and the work will continue beyond it.
