this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
241 points (98.0% liked)
Linux Gaming
28126 readers
198 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
That includes posts generated by LLMs. It doesn’t matter if you “don’t have the time” or “would’ve written the same anyway”, or if “everyone’s doing it geez get with the times”.
For now it’ll also include “AI”-assisted projects that haven't had at least two months of (public, verifiable) dev time behind them.
Resources
Help:
- ProtonDB
- Are We Anticheat Yet?
- r/linux_gaming FAQ
- Fork of an earlier version of the above
- PCGamingWiki
- LibreGameWiki
Launchers/Game Library Managers:
General:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not what this is doing. From my understanding, the kernel doesn't include any new code made by Epic. It just needs to support Secure Boot and a bunch of other requirements, all of which are already possible with existing Linux solutions.
The anti-cheat wants to verify that you haven't fucked with your system, there are ways to do that and EAC requires that your setup can credibly after attest to it.
Video going over the requirements (with timestamp): https://youtu.be/3Xi7m0CYk5s?t=7m39s
Source: https://onlineservices.epicgames.com/news/introducing-easy-anti-cheat-linux-v2
I agree with your sentiment though. But somehow, against all odds, the "programming is too hard" people landed on a solution that sounds pretty good to me.
eBPF does run in kernel mode.
Maybe better than a module, but I wouldn't say "the kernel doesn't include any new code"
It's also why they have to use "integrity" mode of kernel lockdown
If they used "confidentiality" mode, their eBPF code would be untrusted by the kernel and couldn't be loaded
The problem is not the high-level solution. If the anti-cheat does what they claim -- great.
If.
The problem is that EACv2 itself is unverified machine code running with elevated privileges. Unless the source code is released, it will be impossible to know what kinds of shenanigans it engages in. It demands that users trust it implicitly, along with the people and clankers that wrote it, the mistakes they made, and the people and interests they are beholden to.
Trust should be earned, and the fact that people have been indoctrinated to give it away freely should be deeply concerning to everyone.
If you wanted to test it, you could try sandboxing it to run as an unprivileged user with access to nothing else on the operating system. They claim it will run without needing sudo or root.
I'm not gonna test it though. I'm not willing to use a distro that doesn't let me compile and install my own kernel modules.
[edit] I read a bit more, looks like they are allowing unprivileged code into the kernel. That's apparently what eBPF does.
Stay far away from this project.
Holy shit, that's like
curl | sudo bashon steroids. Fucking hilarious.I don't care how good the solution is, I'm not having my shit get attested for no good reason. If needed I'll just wait for a game to get cracked. I'm not installing any anti-cheat enabling bullshit.
Someone on reddit wondered if this is the embrace phase of embrace, extend, extinguish.
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/1xgm7qi/comment/19rq81f8dnsyt/?context=3
...like the current Nvidia drivers that you need to build (and sign in case of secure boot) the kernel module for ?
There's a reason people recommend AMD over NVIDIA for Linux use.
Personally, I don't even play any competitive multiplayer games so I generally have no interaction with anticheat one way or another. For that reason, I don't see myself doing the steps required to get EAC v2 working.
But, given that there are loads of people who:
Then, some trade-offs are inevitable. Anti-cheat is required for that, there's no getting around it. That is the "good reason" for which the attestation is needed.
Maybe for you that's not a good reason - that's fine, it's the same for me, I just don't play those kinds of games and so the games I play don't need anticheat. There's really no reason to get angry with a solution that DOESN'T AFFECT YOU if you're not interested in it, but actually serves a purpose for others.
Oh absolutely don't get me wrong, I totally understand why some people do really need this. It just goes against a lot of my personal reasons for using Linux in the first place.
Competitive multiplayers aren't the only game that use anticheat but coop too. And who's to say that drm doesn't take the opportunity to start requiring EAC v2 type protections for single player games.
Yep... The issue isn't necessarily what they're doing now, but the direction they're going in.
Honestly, I do not trust it one bit
you still shouldn’t use it and support these asshats. i don’t care if this one thing is good by chance. that’s a single living tree in a forest of rot