And not all of those are even licensed under the GNU GPL.
But for those which are, if the copyright holders have a consensus view that one unpatched tarball is all they deign to provide, then there is no GPL issue.
I have already said multiple times that if all the copyright holders in the kernel are cool with this (or disappeared, or disinterested), then there is little practical that can be done on the legal front. Only copyright holders have standing to sue for infringement of their copyrights. In the case at issue, Red Hat subscribers *might* have standing to sue on different grounds, breach of contract, if the subscriber agreement promises, explicitly or implicitly, that packages provided under the agreement will be delivered in compliance with their applicable copyright licenses. I honestly don't know whether this is the case for the RHEL subscriber agreement, as I haven't read it in something like seven years.
Could you make this less hypothetical and name some examples of packages that meet your qualifying criteria?