Daniel Samson
5ad42ceac3
The design still had the display service receiving a device grant, which keeps the wrong layering and just moves who hands it over. Drivers talk hardware. Services talk to no hardware at all — they receive device events and send data and commands over a protocol, which is the OS abstraction between them. So the answer to "which services need device grants" is none, and the design collapses: every holder of a device is a driver, and every driver is spawned by the device manager, which is what grants it. No exceptions to accommodate. display already shows both halves. Its VirtioGpu backend speaks scanout-protocol over an IPC handle and touches no device — the driver holds the hardware, the service speaks to it, and it works today. Its Gop backend calls device.enumerate, device.claim and device.mmioMap: the service reaching into hardware itself, because the firmware framebuffer has no driver to talk to. That is the only such case in the tree; every other claimant is a device-manager child spawned with its device id. A firmware-framebuffer driver is therefore a prerequisite of this phase rather than a consequence. It is small — hold the display node, map the framebuffer, serve the same scanout-protocol virtio-gpu already serves — and the compositor needs no new path, since not caring which backend is behind it is what it was designed for. Two earlier drafts are recorded as wrong in the document: display asking the device manager for a grant, and before that init minting grants because init starts display. Both accommodated an exception instead of removing it.
OS Development
This document explains the architectural decisions behind the operating system.
Written in Zig?
The OS is written in Zig because it has excellent EFI support, so the OS boots quickly without a third-party bootloader.
Zig comes batteries included for systems work — cross-compilation, a build system, and a test runner are all part of the toolchain. Building with -Doptimize=ReleaseSafe keeps runtime safety checks on in the shipped kernel, which removes entire classes of bugs. The built-in test suite, combined with a QEMU integration harness, means every feature is proven to work, before it is shipped.
The codebase of the OS prioritizes readability. The aim is a codebase where someone new to OS development can find their way around without a guide.
A microkernel?
The kernel is a thin layer: it schedules processes and manages memory. Everything else — drivers, file systems, the display — runs in user space as separate, isolated processes.
The payoff is resilience. When a driver crashes, it doesn't take the OS down with it; it gets restarted. That makes this an ideal environment for developing an operating system, because a buggy driver is an ordinary bug: patch it, restart the service, and keep going.
There is a security benefit too. Processes are isolated and talk over Inter-Process Communication (IPC) channels, so compromising one service doesn't hand an attacker the whole machine. Vulnerabilities tend to stay contained in the process they started in.
Other operating systems choose to pack all of these duties into one binary as a Monolithic kernel, mostly for performance: a function call inside the kernel is faster than passing a message between isolated processes. That cost is real — an IPC round-trip is a few microseconds where a function call is nanoseconds — but it is also workload-shaped. Compute-bound programs don't notice it at all. For bulk data like file contents and pixels, the design moves data through shared memory and DMA so it is copied once, the same as a monolithic kernel; only small control messages cross the IPC boundary. What remains is the per-message cost on chatty paths, and the scheduler and memory management are designed to keep that small.
Private ABI
The syscall layer is private. The numbers and structures in abi.zig are an internal detail shared between the kernel and the system's own libraries, and they are free to change between builds.
The public boundary sits one level up: the vDSO that programs call into, and the documented IPC protocols such as the VFS protocol. Programs that stick to those interfaces keep working while the kernel rearranges itself underneath. This is the opposite of the Linux approach, where raw syscall numbers are frozen forever; here, stability is promised at the library and protocol level, and nowhere below it.
Steal the best bits and dump the legacy
The OS is Unix-like, but selectively. It borrows the ideas that have aged well — everything is a file, small services composed over clean interfaces — and skips the parts of POSIX that have caused decades of headaches.
Some concrete choices:
spawn, notfork. Creating a process starts a fresh program and returns the child's id. There is no clone-the-whole-address-space-then-immediately-throw-it-away dance, and none of the subtle state-inheritance bugs that come with it.- Time is a syscall. The kernel owns the clock and timers directly. There is no time daemon to keep alive and no ambiguity about where the truth lives.
- Lifecycle events arrive as messages. A supervisor learns that a child exited through an IPC message on an endpoint it already owns — delivered like any other message, not as an interrupt that can fire between any two instructions.
The test for keeping an idea is simple: does it still pull its weight, or is it only there because it was there in 1979?