The members of the kernel security team are not allowed to tell their employers anything that happens on the security list. They are there as individual members, not as employees.
And try to define "major distros" in a way that actually means anything viable.
If you just want to count users, then that would only be Android (everything else is a rounding error.) After Android, that would be Yocto, and then Debian. All distros after that are mere fractions of overall users compared to those 3 by number of running systems alone.
If you want to count it as "$ spent on Linux" then that cuts out Android and Yocto and Debian as those distros are free, and would focus purely on the tiny installed base of paid Linux systems, and cut everyone else out.
So what is a fair way to do this other than "we notify no one, and tell everyone to always update their systems to the latest stable releases that we support."
Especially as there is no way for us to determine your use case (i.e. if a specific bug is a vulnerability for you or not.)
They hide structures very easily, allowing programmers to accidentally put them on the stack or use them as parameters in functions where they shouldn't be doing so. By forcing "struct" on the name, it makes it more obvious as to what you are doing.
The amount of resources and other stuff that the LF provides to the Linux kernel community has increased over the years, including last year. Just because new people are brought in with new projects (that the LF member companies want to host) does not mean that somehow less is being given to the kernel community at all. It is not a zero-sum game here at all, that's not how the LF works in any way.
Again, this would have been easy to verify if someone just asked us.
So to repeat, no "abandonment" is happening here at all, the opposite is happening, just like it has for the entirety of the LF's existence, support has grown every year.
Did anyone think to actually ask the developer who is maintaining the LTS kernel versions why he made that change (back in February?), i.e. me?
{sigh}
No, I guess that would take too much effort, and wouldn't result in such a click-bait headline "LTS kernels are no longer supported for 6 years because it turns out no one used them." doesn't have that same fun sound...
No, the only rust code accepted into any released kernels is basic framework infrastructure so that someday, maybe, in the future, real functionality could be written in rust.
There are many out-of-tree examples of rust kernel code, but as of right now, none have been merged.
This already happens today at many companies. I write a few of these a year for companies that I do not work at, and have been for the past decade or so. It's not unusual and the companies that recognize that having their developers be a valued part of the overall kernel community is a very good thing to support.
And try to define "major distros" in a way that actually means anything viable.
If you just want to count users, then that would only be Android (everything else is a rounding error.) After Android, that would be Yocto, and then Debian. All distros after that are mere fractions of overall users compared to those 3 by number of running systems alone.
If you want to count it as "$ spent on Linux" then that cuts out Android and Yocto and Debian as those distros are free, and would focus purely on the tiny installed base of paid Linux systems, and cut everyone else out.
So what is a fair way to do this other than "we notify no one, and tell everyone to always update their systems to the latest stable releases that we support."
Especially as there is no way for us to determine your use case (i.e. if a specific bug is a vulnerability for you or not.)