Track B — Linux-compat research (keep ctos specificity)
Tracker epic: issue #40. Child issues B1–B7.
Driving force (non-negotiable)
This track is subordinate to ctos core principles (principles.md). Linux-compat research must not abandon honesty, fail-closed sensors, the three pillars, or virt learning scope. Do not override principles for a “runs Linux” headline.
- Honesty ledger — Verified only with a probe
- Antifragility — fail-closed smoke + ratchets
- Security — threat model; probed mitigations only
- Performance — measure first; no invented benches
- Document-first / one milestone → one branch → one PR
Track A (track-a.md) should largely complete before deep Linux ABI work. Reuse A1–A7 where they help. Full Linux ABI + containers is not a promise.
Goal
Explore what Linux userspace / ABI-subset work would take without dropping ctos specificity. This is an ADR/research ladder, not a distro.
Keep
Honesty ledger, fail-closed smoke (including Docker/cts-ai ratchets), pillars (antifragility / security / performance), ADR-gated ISA/memory/EL0 decisions, QEMU virt until an ADR widens it.
Ordered research
| ID | Work | Status (2026-09-11) |
|---|---|---|
| B1 | ADR: Linux-compat goals & non-goals | Planned (#41) |
| B2 | Syscall surface map (Linux aarch64 vs ctos SVC) | Planned (#42) |
| B3 | Process model vs Linux (fork/exec/wait) | Planned (#43) |
| B4 | Linux ELF / auxv / PT_INTERP vs freestanding loader | Planned (#44) |
| B5 | Linux VFS concepts vs thin ctos VFS | Planned (#45) |
| B6 | Decision: compat layer vs reimplement vs never | Planned (#46) |
| B7 | Containers remain a non-goal (OCI needs a Linux host) | Planned as documentation (#47); guest runtime already no in site hosting-apps.md (extra: host-apps.md) |
Do not claim Docker/OCI host without namespaces/cgroups/overlay. That stays out or far-later — not a Track B “win.”