That is an excellent question. It may well be that even single line drive by patches raise to the bar of being a kernel contributor, it may be that most of the authors of such small patches have historically had a better idea of their place in the greater scheme of things and that what matters is that the bug gets fixed (it's a security issue, after all) rather than that it gets fixed in their way or with their name affixed to the patch.
Fixing bugs is a contribution, and detecting bugs and doing RCA is also a contribution. In this case the OP got credited for the second and the third using the appropriate mechanism. The maintainer could have used another tag to add additional credit, but chose not to as is their right - and custom with such small patches, especially if they need work.
High profile projects such as the Linux kernel suffer from attracting people that just want to be associated with the project, I think OP went considerably beyond that and deserves some credit but does not have an automatic right to a particular kind of credit and if that was his expectation he should have ensured up front that that was the outcome. By posting an incomplete patch for a security issue to the kernel mailing list this was the expected outcome, in fact the maintainer spent considerable time on back-and-forth with the OP.
> it may be that most of the authors of such small patches have historically had a better idea of their place in the greater scheme of things
Historically, denying those, who went to great lengths for their contributions, even the minor bit of attention they deserved, has led at times to the castle getting torched down.
It pays off to have your expectations calibrated before you engage in an activity. To be named a kernel contributor on the basis of this particular patch seems to be a bit excessive (even if it had been properly signed off, which it wasn't), of course you are entirely welcome to disagree with that.
To give some perspective: there are ~30 million lines of code in the kernel and about 5K named contributors, and a much smaller set of maintainers who will accept patches, modify them, discard them, rewrite them and or merge them based on their judgment, which they generally exercise very well.
Agreed the expectations are so far out of line I doubt the maintainers see a problem. If this guy wants to be a kernel contributor he can keep contributing to the kernel.
The LKML is all the proof the OP needs to show he contributed and precisely in what way. This post is way over the top and even if Michael Ellerman could have handled this better so could the OP.
Fixing bugs is a contribution, and detecting bugs and doing RCA is also a contribution. In this case the OP got credited for the second and the third using the appropriate mechanism. The maintainer could have used another tag to add additional credit, but chose not to as is their right - and custom with such small patches, especially if they need work.
High profile projects such as the Linux kernel suffer from attracting people that just want to be associated with the project, I think OP went considerably beyond that and deserves some credit but does not have an automatic right to a particular kind of credit and if that was his expectation he should have ensured up front that that was the outcome. By posting an incomplete patch for a security issue to the kernel mailing list this was the expected outcome, in fact the maintainer spent considerable time on back-and-forth with the OP.