https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.17/process/submitting-pat...
Absolutely nowhere does it say that accepting your patch will lead to you automatically being given kernel contributor status, and to require that status on the basis of committing a single tiny patch that wasn't properly signed off and required work shows a different set of expectations than one that I would see as reasonable.
Now to look at this patch it looks Michael took the report, debugged, tested, and resolved the issue, when all he actually did is move a single line to outside of a conditional.
> and required work shows a different set of expectations
You're really stretching here, the only "required work" missing was a sign off, which Michael could have given.
In any other environment, this would be plagiarism. And it looks morally poor.
Besides that the OP misrepresented the interaction to a degree that he loses my sympathy, he makes the maintainer come off like a dick when in fact that wasn't the case at all, the interchange was polite and to the point and exactly in line with what I'd expect from a kernel maintainer.
Who do you think has the commit bit on the Linux repo? Hint: kernel contributors don't.
Is something like "we may accept your work and choose not to give you credit" actually stated somewhere when you sign up for or submit to that security mailing list?
Because that's certainly not the usual rule for unsolicited work in other contexts.