> Apparently in the meantime Jake thought "it might not be very
> productive" and failed to inform us that he scrapped the idea.
(sorry for the late reply, I was travelling back from SCALE)
At around the same time as we were discussing the idea, there was a flamewar about the same subject going on in lkml and it seemed clear to me that the personalities involved (on both sides) would likely just perpetuate that. That's why I didn't think it would be very productive, fwiw.
But I certainly don't discourage information about the known security impacts of stable tree patches (or any other patches for that matter) being published. If it were, we would be likely to link to it.