Daniel Samson
a86559648e
An AMD Ryzen booted to a working compositor with no USB and no storage, and the log said only "register refused". A tree-wide audit of every compile-time ceiling followed: 235 of them, 139 on quantities the machine or a file decides rather than us, 5 documented anywhere, 171 silent when reached. docs/fixed-bounds-audit.md has the inventory. Errno attribution. The errno space was split between the kernel and the envelope, free to drift; it is now one list in system/abi.zig, restated on both sides, with a comptime check in library/device/driver where the two halves are visible. device_register's six refusals and device_claim's three are distinct codes, so a bus driver can say which rule stopped it, and BadParent splits into NoSuchParent and NotYourParent. pci-bus reconciles found against registered instead of counting refused functions as found. Idempotency ordering. The child cap was checked before the identity match, so a restarted bus was refused its own devices — the supervision restart the system leans on ratcheted toward a degraded machine. A re-registration consumes no slot and is now admitted first. IOMMU fail-closed. confineDevice returned success for a device id past the confinement table, leaving the device outside every domain while the caller believed it confined — unreachable only while ids stop at 64, which both the inventory move and a hardware-reported domain count would change. It refuses now, and the coupling to the broker's device cap is a comptime assert rather than a sentence in a comment. PCI apertures. The bridge's MMIO apertures are derived from the holes in the firmware memory map, and the derivation copied sub-4 GiB entries into a fixed [64] array and skipped the rest. A skipped region is not merely lost: the gap finder concludes it is free, so a real machine's 60-200 entry map yields an aperture over live RAM, and containment then admits a child BAR covering kernel memory. Rewritten to walk the map in place, with the hole finder extracted as a pure function and driven by a synthetic 100-entry map in a new test case. Both new tests were verified to fail on the old code. parameters.zig gains the rationale it was missing and loses a stale sentence pointing at the wrong file; vdso.md documents the errno space, including EPEER, which had no written meaning anywhere. docs/os-development/bounds.md is how a ceiling is declared from here. docs/bounds-track-plan.md is the plan to remove the ones we invented. Suite 114 -> 115.
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?