My point stands then. If you're applying kernel grade patches on machines which you knowingly cannot disable or test, that's just simple negligence.

I think it's probably not a kernel patch per se. I think it's something like an update to a data file that Crowdstrike considers low risk, but it turns out that the already-deployed kernel module has a bug that means it crashes when it reads this file.

Which suggests the question: What's the current state of "fuzz testing" within the Crowdstrike dev org?