Not OP, but please do try to influence this policy if you can:
1. The commit message [1] does not mention any security implication. This is reasonable, because the patch is usually released to the public earlier and it makes sense to do some obfuscation, to deter patch-gappers. But note that this approach is not a controversy-free one.
2. But there is also no security announcement in stable release notes or any similar stuff. I don't know how to provide evidence of "something simply does not exist".
3. Check the timeline in the blog post. The bug being fixed in stable release (5.6.11 on 2022-02-23) marks the end of upstream's handling of this bug. Max then had to send the bug details to linux-distros list to kick off (another separate process) distro maintainers' response. If what you are maintaining is not a distro, good luck.
1. The commit message [1] does not mention any security implication. This is reasonable, because the patch is usually released to the public earlier and it makes sense to do some obfuscation, to deter patch-gappers. But note that this approach is not a controversy-free one.
2. But there is also no security announcement in stable release notes or any similar stuff. I don't know how to provide evidence of "something simply does not exist".
3. Check the timeline in the blog post. The bug being fixed in stable release (5.6.11 on 2022-02-23) marks the end of upstream's handling of this bug. Max then had to send the bug details to linux-distros list to kick off (another separate process) distro maintainers' response. If what you are maintaining is not a distro, good luck.
Is this wrong-sounding enough?
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...