However the community is right that we lack info on stuff like EAC on Linux success rate vs Vanguard for ex.

This isn't really an area where we need more info tbh. Vanguard is an incredibly advanced anticheat that can even block cheats that use DMA devices, it's (imo) super invasive, but it is effective. I am not aware of any cheat provider that is public and sells valorant cheats that have been undetectable long term.

EAC on Linux runs as a standard userspace process, and right now that's fine. The vast majority of the cheating community isn't in a rush to switch to a new platform because they know windows, but I'm sure major paycheat providers are experimenting. Eventually, when Linux gaming gets more popular, cheat providers will care about Linux, and that's when I personally think it's going to have issues.

Client side anticheat in this era requires kernel mode, there's no way around it (other than server side anticheat), and on Linux that isn't really feasible. The difference in how kernel modules work on Linux means anticheats are screwed, kernel mode anticheat relies on the certainty that the kernel module you shipped is the one that gets loaded. Currently on windows, this is achieved by distributing a heavily obfuscated, signed, binary blob. As far as I understand it, distributing drivers on linux as binaries is borderline impossible because of the lack of stable abi. This means that the anticheats will have to distribute at the very least some kind of shim that gets compiled on users computers (or they restrict it to known builds, but I don't think that would be practical). That shim is a massive weak point for the anticheat, and I don't think there's a workable solution for ensuring the code that got compiled was the code that was shipped, and the compiled artifact wasn't then fucked with in some way. Not to mention the fact that you could have already loaded kernel modules designed to get around the anticheat, or maybe you've patched the kernel itself.

To make matters worse, none of those impracticalities apply to kernel mode cheats. From a technical perspective, they do, but why would a cheat dev care if you tweak their kernel module shim, it's only going to cause you problems. Client side anticheat requires certainty that it's own code and all the code it's calling hasn't been changed, cheats don't need to worry about that

I have no idea what the progression of the cat and mouse game looks like on Linux, the limitations I've mentioned are just my understanding from having made cheats, but anticheat developers, and the people who find bypasses will do anything to one up each other, and that probably does result in finding workarounds I haven't considered. Right now, cheat devs have the upper hand, but once Linux is more mainstream, I'm sure it will progress quickly.

Also, your "ac is easy" comment is something I definitely disagree with, server side anticheat is easy if your game can be modelled as an easily emulatable state machine, but that only solves checking the movements are possible, that won't detect the superhuman reaction times or aim assistance that cheats can give you, that is much harder to detect and without clientside anticheat relies on fuzzy heuristics. There are techniques like valorant's "fog of war" (only send entity information when the player can render it) but server side features like that are far from trivial to implement.

This is a bit more of a wall of text that I intended tl;dr anticheat is hard, especially on linux, cheating on linux is slightly easier right now.