feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
use std::collections::HashSet;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use std::path::Component;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use std::path::Path;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use std::path::PathBuf;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
use codex_apply_patch::ApplyPatchAction;
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
use codex_apply_patch::ApplyPatchFileChange;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
use crate::exec::SandboxType;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use crate::is_safe_command::is_known_safe_command;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use crate::protocol::AskForApproval;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use crate::protocol::SandboxPolicy;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
#[derive(Debug, PartialEq)]
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
pub enum SafetyCheck {
|
|
|
|
|
|
AutoApprove { sandbox_type: SandboxType },
|
|
|
|
|
|
AskUser,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reject { reason: String },
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn assess_patch_safety(
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
action: &ApplyPatchAction,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
policy: AskForApproval,
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
sandbox_policy: &SandboxPolicy,
|
2025-05-04 10:57:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
cwd: &Path,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
) -> SafetyCheck {
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
if action.is_empty() {
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
return SafetyCheck::Reject {
|
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "empty patch".to_string(),
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
match policy {
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
AskForApproval::OnFailure | AskForApproval::Never | AskForApproval::OnRequest => {
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Continue to see if this can be auto-approved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO(ragona): I'm not sure this is actually correct? I believe in this case
|
|
|
|
|
|
// we want to continue to the writable paths check before asking the user.
|
2025-06-25 12:26:13 -07:00
|
|
|
|
AskForApproval::UnlessTrusted => {
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
return SafetyCheck::AskUser;
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: ensure PatchApplyBeginEvent and PatchApplyEndEvent are dispatched reliably (#1760)
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1705, as
that PR inadvertently lost the logic where `PatchApplyBeginEvent` and
`PatchApplyEndEvent` events were sent when patches were auto-approved.
Though as part of this fix, I believe this also makes an important
safety fix to `assess_patch_safety()`, as there was a case that returned
`SandboxType::None`, which arguably is the thing we were trying to avoid
in #1705.
On a high level, we want there to be only one codepath where
`apply_patch` happens, which should be unified with the patch to run
`exec`, in general, so that sandboxing is applied consistently for both
cases.
Prior to this change, `apply_patch()` in `core` would either:
* exit early, delegating to `exec()` to shell out to `apply_patch` using
the appropriate sandbox
* proceed to run the logic for `apply_patch` in memory
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/549846b29ad52f6cb4f8560365a731966054a9b3/codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs#L61-L63
In this implementation, only the latter would dispatch
`PatchApplyBeginEvent` and `PatchApplyEndEvent`, though the former would
dispatch `ExecCommandBeginEvent` and `ExecCommandEndEvent` for the
`apply_patch` call (or, more specifically, the `codex
--codex-run-as-apply-patch PATCH` call).
To unify things in this PR, we:
* Eliminate the back half of the `apply_patch()` function, and instead
have it also return with `DelegateToExec`, though we add an extra field
to the return value, `user_explicitly_approved_this_action`.
* In `codex.rs` where we process `DelegateToExec`, we use
`SandboxType::None` when `user_explicitly_approved_this_action` is
`true`. This means **we no longer run the apply_patch logic in memory**,
as we always `exec()`. (Note this is what allowed us to delete so much
code in `apply_patch.rs`.)
* In `codex.rs`, we further update `notify_exec_command_begin()` and
`notify_exec_command_end()` to take additional fields to determine what
type of notification to send: `ExecCommand` or `PatchApply`.
Admittedly, this PR also drops some of the functionality about giving
the user the opportunity to expand the set of writable roots as part of
approving the `apply_patch` command. I'm not sure how much that was
used, and we should probably rethink how that works as we are currently
tidying up the protocol to the TUI, in general.
2025-07-31 11:13:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Even though the patch *appears* to be constrained to writable paths, it
|
|
|
|
|
|
// is possible that paths in the patch are hard links to files outside the
|
|
|
|
|
|
// writable roots, so we should still run `apply_patch` in a sandbox in that
|
|
|
|
|
|
// case.
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
if is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(action, sandbox_policy, cwd)
|
fix: ensure PatchApplyBeginEvent and PatchApplyEndEvent are dispatched reliably (#1760)
This is a follow-up to https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1705, as
that PR inadvertently lost the logic where `PatchApplyBeginEvent` and
`PatchApplyEndEvent` events were sent when patches were auto-approved.
Though as part of this fix, I believe this also makes an important
safety fix to `assess_patch_safety()`, as there was a case that returned
`SandboxType::None`, which arguably is the thing we were trying to avoid
in #1705.
On a high level, we want there to be only one codepath where
`apply_patch` happens, which should be unified with the patch to run
`exec`, in general, so that sandboxing is applied consistently for both
cases.
Prior to this change, `apply_patch()` in `core` would either:
* exit early, delegating to `exec()` to shell out to `apply_patch` using
the appropriate sandbox
* proceed to run the logic for `apply_patch` in memory
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/549846b29ad52f6cb4f8560365a731966054a9b3/codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs#L61-L63
In this implementation, only the latter would dispatch
`PatchApplyBeginEvent` and `PatchApplyEndEvent`, though the former would
dispatch `ExecCommandBeginEvent` and `ExecCommandEndEvent` for the
`apply_patch` call (or, more specifically, the `codex
--codex-run-as-apply-patch PATCH` call).
To unify things in this PR, we:
* Eliminate the back half of the `apply_patch()` function, and instead
have it also return with `DelegateToExec`, though we add an extra field
to the return value, `user_explicitly_approved_this_action`.
* In `codex.rs` where we process `DelegateToExec`, we use
`SandboxType::None` when `user_explicitly_approved_this_action` is
`true`. This means **we no longer run the apply_patch logic in memory**,
as we always `exec()`. (Note this is what allowed us to delete so much
code in `apply_patch.rs`.)
* In `codex.rs`, we further update `notify_exec_command_begin()` and
`notify_exec_command_end()` to take additional fields to determine what
type of notification to send: `ExecCommand` or `PatchApply`.
Admittedly, this PR also drops some of the functionality about giving
the user the opportunity to expand the set of writable roots as part of
approving the `apply_patch` command. I'm not sure how much that was
used, and we should probably rethink how that works as we are currently
tidying up the protocol to the TUI, in general.
2025-07-31 11:13:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|| policy == AskForApproval::OnFailure
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Only auto‑approve when we can actually enforce a sandbox. Otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
|
// fall back to asking the user because the patch may touch arbitrary
|
|
|
|
|
|
// paths outside the project.
|
|
|
|
|
|
match get_platform_sandbox() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(sandbox_type) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove { sandbox_type },
|
|
|
|
|
|
None => SafetyCheck::AskUser,
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else if policy == AskForApproval::Never {
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::Reject {
|
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "writing outside of the project; rejected by user approval settings"
|
|
|
|
|
|
.to_string(),
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::AskUser
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
/// For a command to be run _without_ a sandbox, one of the following must be
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// true:
|
|
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// - the user has explicitly approved the command
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// - the command is on the "known safe" list
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// - `DangerFullAccess` was specified and `UnlessTrusted` was not
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
pub fn assess_command_safety(
|
|
|
|
|
|
command: &[String],
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval_policy: AskForApproval,
|
fix: overhaul SandboxPolicy and config loading in Rust (#732)
Previous to this PR, `SandboxPolicy` was a bit difficult to work with:
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/237f8a11e11fdcc793a09e787e48215676d9b95b/codex-rs/core/src/protocol.rs#L98-L108
Specifically:
* It was an `enum` and therefore options were mutually exclusive as
opposed to additive.
* It defined things in terms of what the agent _could not_ do as opposed
to what they _could_ do. This made things hard to support because we
would prefer to build up a sandbox config by starting with something
extremely restrictive and only granting permissions for things the user
as explicitly allowed.
This PR changes things substantially by redefining the policy in terms
of two concepts:
* A `SandboxPermission` enum that defines permissions that can be
granted to the agent/sandbox.
* A `SandboxPolicy` that internally stores a `Vec<SandboxPermission>`,
but externally exposes a simpler API that can be used to configure
Seatbelt/Landlock.
Previous to this PR, we supported a `--sandbox` flag that effectively
mapped to an enum value in `SandboxPolicy`. Though now that
`SandboxPolicy` is a wrapper around `Vec<SandboxPermission>`, the single
`--sandbox` flag no longer makes sense. While I could have turned it
into a flag that the user can specify multiple times, I think the
current values to use with such a flag are long and potentially messy,
so for the moment, I have dropped support for `--sandbox` altogether and
we can bring it back once we have figured out the naming thing.
Since `--sandbox` is gone, users now have to specify `--full-auto` to
get a sandbox that allows writes in `cwd`. Admittedly, there is no clean
way to specify the equivalent of `--full-auto` in your `config.toml`
right now, so we will have to revisit that, as well.
Because `Config` presents a `SandboxPolicy` field and `SandboxPolicy`
changed considerably, I had to overhaul how config loading works, as
well. There are now two distinct concepts, `ConfigToml` and `Config`:
* `ConfigToml` is the deserialization of `~/.codex/config.toml`. As one
might expect, every field is `Optional` and it is `#[derive(Deserialize,
Default)]`. Consistent use of `Optional` makes it clear what the user
has specified explicitly.
* `Config` is the "normalized config" and is produced by merging
`ConfigToml` with `ConfigOverrides`. Where `ConfigToml` contains a raw
`Option<Vec<SandboxPermission>>`, `Config` presents only the final
`SandboxPolicy`.
The changes to `core/src/exec.rs` and `core/src/linux.rs` merit extra
special attention to ensure we are faithfully mapping the
`SandboxPolicy` to the Seatbelt and Landlock configs, respectively.
Also, take note that `core/src/seatbelt_readonly_policy.sbpl` has been
renamed to `codex-rs/core/src/seatbelt_base_policy.sbpl` and that
`(allow file-read*)` has been removed from the `.sbpl` file as now this
is added to the policy in `core/src/exec.rs` when
`sandbox_policy.has_full_disk_read_access()` is `true`.
2025-04-29 15:01:16 -07:00
|
|
|
|
sandbox_policy: &SandboxPolicy,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
approved: &HashSet<Vec<String>>,
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
with_escalated_permissions: bool,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
) -> SafetyCheck {
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// A command is "trusted" because either:
|
|
|
|
|
|
// - it belongs to a set of commands we consider "safe" by default, or
|
|
|
|
|
|
// - the user has explicitly approved the command for this session
|
|
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Currently, whether a command is "trusted" is a simple boolean, but we
|
|
|
|
|
|
// should include more metadata on this command test to indicate whether it
|
|
|
|
|
|
// should be run inside a sandbox or not. (This could be something the user
|
|
|
|
|
|
// defines as part of `execpolicy`.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
|
|
// For example, when `is_known_safe_command(command)` returns `true`, it
|
|
|
|
|
|
// would probably be fine to run the command in a sandbox, but when
|
|
|
|
|
|
// `approved.contains(command)` is `true`, the user may have approved it for
|
|
|
|
|
|
// the session _because_ they know it needs to run outside a sandbox.
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
if is_known_safe_command(command) || approved.contains(command) {
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
return SafetyCheck::AutoApprove {
|
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox_type: SandboxType::None,
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
assess_safety_for_untrusted_command(approval_policy, sandbox_policy, with_escalated_permissions)
|
fix: run apply_patch calls through the sandbox (#1705)
Building on the work of https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1702, this
changes how a shell call to `apply_patch` is handled.
Previously, a shell call to `apply_patch` was always handled in-process,
never leveraging a sandbox. To determine whether the `apply_patch`
operation could be auto-approved, the
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` function would check if
all the paths listed in the paths were writable. If so, the agent would
apply the changes listed in the patch.
Unfortunately, this approach afforded a loophole: symlinks!
* For a soft link, we could fix this issue by tracing the link and
checking whether the target is in the set of writable paths, however...
* ...For a hard link, things are not as simple. We can run `stat FILE`
to see if the number of links is greater than 1, but then we would have
to do something potentially expensive like `find . -inum <inode_number>`
to find the other paths for `FILE`. Further, even if this worked, this
approach runs the risk of a
[TOCTOU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-of-check_to_time-of-use)
race condition, so it is not robust.
The solution, implemented in this PR, is to take the virtual execution
of the `apply_patch` CLI into an _actual_ execution using `codex
--codex-run-as-apply-patch PATCH`, which we can run under the sandbox
the user specified, just like any other `shell` call.
This, of course, assumes that the sandbox prevents writing through
symlinks as a mechanism to write to folders that are not in the writable
set configured by the sandbox. I verified this by testing the following
on both Mac and Linux:
```shell
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail
# Can running a command in SANDBOX_DIR write a file in EXPLOIT_DIR?
# Codex is run in SANDBOX_DIR, so writes should be constrianed to this directory.
SANDBOX_DIR=$(mktemp -d -p "$HOME" sandboxtesttemp.XXXXXX)
# EXPLOIT_DIR is outside of SANDBOX_DIR, so let's see if we can write to it.
EXPLOIT_DIR=$(mktemp -d -p "$HOME" sandboxtesttemp.XXXXXX)
echo "SANDBOX_DIR: $SANDBOX_DIR"
echo "EXPLOIT_DIR: $EXPLOIT_DIR"
cleanup() {
# Only remove if it looks sane and still exists
[[ -n "${SANDBOX_DIR:-}" && -d "$SANDBOX_DIR" ]] && rm -rf -- "$SANDBOX_DIR"
[[ -n "${EXPLOIT_DIR:-}" && -d "$EXPLOIT_DIR" ]] && rm -rf -- "$EXPLOIT_DIR"
}
trap cleanup EXIT
echo "I am the original content" > "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt"
# Drop the -s to test hard links.
ln -s "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt" "${SANDBOX_DIR}/link-to-original.txt"
cat "${SANDBOX_DIR}/link-to-original.txt"
if [[ "$(uname)" == "Linux" ]]; then
SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND=landlock
else
SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND=seatbelt
fi
# Attempt the exploit
cd "${SANDBOX_DIR}"
codex debug "${SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND}" bash -lc "echo pwned > ./link-to-original.txt" || true
cat "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt"
```
Admittedly, this change merits a proper integration test, but I think I
will have to do that in a follow-up PR.
2025-07-30 16:45:08 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub(crate) fn assess_safety_for_untrusted_command(
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval_policy: AskForApproval,
|
|
|
|
|
|
sandbox_policy: &SandboxPolicy,
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
with_escalated_permissions: bool,
|
fix: run apply_patch calls through the sandbox (#1705)
Building on the work of https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1702, this
changes how a shell call to `apply_patch` is handled.
Previously, a shell call to `apply_patch` was always handled in-process,
never leveraging a sandbox. To determine whether the `apply_patch`
operation could be auto-approved, the
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` function would check if
all the paths listed in the paths were writable. If so, the agent would
apply the changes listed in the patch.
Unfortunately, this approach afforded a loophole: symlinks!
* For a soft link, we could fix this issue by tracing the link and
checking whether the target is in the set of writable paths, however...
* ...For a hard link, things are not as simple. We can run `stat FILE`
to see if the number of links is greater than 1, but then we would have
to do something potentially expensive like `find . -inum <inode_number>`
to find the other paths for `FILE`. Further, even if this worked, this
approach runs the risk of a
[TOCTOU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-of-check_to_time-of-use)
race condition, so it is not robust.
The solution, implemented in this PR, is to take the virtual execution
of the `apply_patch` CLI into an _actual_ execution using `codex
--codex-run-as-apply-patch PATCH`, which we can run under the sandbox
the user specified, just like any other `shell` call.
This, of course, assumes that the sandbox prevents writing through
symlinks as a mechanism to write to folders that are not in the writable
set configured by the sandbox. I verified this by testing the following
on both Mac and Linux:
```shell
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail
# Can running a command in SANDBOX_DIR write a file in EXPLOIT_DIR?
# Codex is run in SANDBOX_DIR, so writes should be constrianed to this directory.
SANDBOX_DIR=$(mktemp -d -p "$HOME" sandboxtesttemp.XXXXXX)
# EXPLOIT_DIR is outside of SANDBOX_DIR, so let's see if we can write to it.
EXPLOIT_DIR=$(mktemp -d -p "$HOME" sandboxtesttemp.XXXXXX)
echo "SANDBOX_DIR: $SANDBOX_DIR"
echo "EXPLOIT_DIR: $EXPLOIT_DIR"
cleanup() {
# Only remove if it looks sane and still exists
[[ -n "${SANDBOX_DIR:-}" && -d "$SANDBOX_DIR" ]] && rm -rf -- "$SANDBOX_DIR"
[[ -n "${EXPLOIT_DIR:-}" && -d "$EXPLOIT_DIR" ]] && rm -rf -- "$EXPLOIT_DIR"
}
trap cleanup EXIT
echo "I am the original content" > "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt"
# Drop the -s to test hard links.
ln -s "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt" "${SANDBOX_DIR}/link-to-original.txt"
cat "${SANDBOX_DIR}/link-to-original.txt"
if [[ "$(uname)" == "Linux" ]]; then
SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND=landlock
else
SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND=seatbelt
fi
# Attempt the exploit
cd "${SANDBOX_DIR}"
codex debug "${SANDBOX_SUBCOMMAND}" bash -lc "echo pwned > ./link-to-original.txt" || true
cat "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt"
```
Admittedly, this change merits a proper integration test, but I think I
will have to do that in a follow-up PR.
2025-07-30 16:45:08 -07:00
|
|
|
|
) -> SafetyCheck {
|
|
|
|
|
|
use AskForApproval::*;
|
|
|
|
|
|
use SandboxPolicy::*;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
match (approval_policy, sandbox_policy) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
(UnlessTrusted, _) => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Even though the user may have opted into DangerFullAccess,
|
|
|
|
|
|
// they also requested that we ask for approval for untrusted
|
|
|
|
|
|
// commands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::AskUser
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
(OnFailure, DangerFullAccess)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (Never, DangerFullAccess)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (OnRequest, DangerFullAccess) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove {
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
sandbox_type: SandboxType::None,
|
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
(OnRequest, ReadOnly) | (OnRequest, WorkspaceWrite { .. }) => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
if with_escalated_permissions {
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::AskUser
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
match get_platform_sandbox() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(sandbox_type) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove { sandbox_type },
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Fall back to asking since the command is untrusted and
|
|
|
|
|
|
// we do not have a sandbox available
|
|
|
|
|
|
None => SafetyCheck::AskUser,
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00
|
|
|
|
(Never, ReadOnly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (Never, WorkspaceWrite { .. })
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (OnFailure, ReadOnly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (OnFailure, WorkspaceWrite { .. }) => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
match get_platform_sandbox() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(sandbox_type) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove { sandbox_type },
|
|
|
|
|
|
None => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
if matches!(approval_policy, OnFailure) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Since the command is not trusted, even though the
|
|
|
|
|
|
// user has requested to only ask for approval on
|
|
|
|
|
|
// failure, we will ask the user because no sandbox is
|
|
|
|
|
|
// available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::AskUser
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
// We are in non-interactive mode and lack approval, so
|
|
|
|
|
|
// all we can do is reject the command.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SafetyCheck::Reject {
|
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "auto-rejected because command is not on trusted list"
|
|
|
|
|
|
.to_string(),
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
fix: overhaul SandboxPolicy and config loading in Rust (#732)
Previous to this PR, `SandboxPolicy` was a bit difficult to work with:
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/237f8a11e11fdcc793a09e787e48215676d9b95b/codex-rs/core/src/protocol.rs#L98-L108
Specifically:
* It was an `enum` and therefore options were mutually exclusive as
opposed to additive.
* It defined things in terms of what the agent _could not_ do as opposed
to what they _could_ do. This made things hard to support because we
would prefer to build up a sandbox config by starting with something
extremely restrictive and only granting permissions for things the user
as explicitly allowed.
This PR changes things substantially by redefining the policy in terms
of two concepts:
* A `SandboxPermission` enum that defines permissions that can be
granted to the agent/sandbox.
* A `SandboxPolicy` that internally stores a `Vec<SandboxPermission>`,
but externally exposes a simpler API that can be used to configure
Seatbelt/Landlock.
Previous to this PR, we supported a `--sandbox` flag that effectively
mapped to an enum value in `SandboxPolicy`. Though now that
`SandboxPolicy` is a wrapper around `Vec<SandboxPermission>`, the single
`--sandbox` flag no longer makes sense. While I could have turned it
into a flag that the user can specify multiple times, I think the
current values to use with such a flag are long and potentially messy,
so for the moment, I have dropped support for `--sandbox` altogether and
we can bring it back once we have figured out the naming thing.
Since `--sandbox` is gone, users now have to specify `--full-auto` to
get a sandbox that allows writes in `cwd`. Admittedly, there is no clean
way to specify the equivalent of `--full-auto` in your `config.toml`
right now, so we will have to revisit that, as well.
Because `Config` presents a `SandboxPolicy` field and `SandboxPolicy`
changed considerably, I had to overhaul how config loading works, as
well. There are now two distinct concepts, `ConfigToml` and `Config`:
* `ConfigToml` is the deserialization of `~/.codex/config.toml`. As one
might expect, every field is `Optional` and it is `#[derive(Deserialize,
Default)]`. Consistent use of `Optional` makes it clear what the user
has specified explicitly.
* `Config` is the "normalized config" and is produced by merging
`ConfigToml` with `ConfigOverrides`. Where `ConfigToml` contains a raw
`Option<Vec<SandboxPermission>>`, `Config` presents only the final
`SandboxPolicy`.
The changes to `core/src/exec.rs` and `core/src/linux.rs` merit extra
special attention to ensure we are faithfully mapping the
`SandboxPolicy` to the Seatbelt and Landlock configs, respectively.
Also, take note that `core/src/seatbelt_readonly_policy.sbpl` has been
renamed to `codex-rs/core/src/seatbelt_base_policy.sbpl` and that
`(allow file-read*)` has been removed from the `.sbpl` file as now this
is added to the policy in `core/src/exec.rs` when
`sandbox_policy.has_full_disk_read_access()` is `true`.
2025-04-29 15:01:16 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn get_platform_sandbox() -> Option<SandboxType> {
|
|
|
|
|
|
if cfg!(target_os = "macos") {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(SandboxType::MacosSeatbelt)
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else if cfg!(target_os = "linux") {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(SandboxType::LinuxSeccomp)
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
action: &ApplyPatchAction,
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
sandbox_policy: &SandboxPolicy,
|
2025-05-04 10:57:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
cwd: &Path,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
) -> bool {
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Early‑exit if there are no declared writable roots.
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
let writable_roots = match sandbox_policy {
|
|
|
|
|
|
SandboxPolicy::ReadOnly => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite { .. } => sandbox_policy.get_writable_roots_with_cwd(cwd),
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Normalize a path by removing `.` and resolving `..` without touching the
|
|
|
|
|
|
// filesystem (works even if the file does not exist).
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn normalize(path: &Path) -> Option<PathBuf> {
|
|
|
|
|
|
let mut out = PathBuf::new();
|
|
|
|
|
|
for comp in path.components() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
match comp {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Component::ParentDir => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
out.pop();
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Component::CurDir => { /* skip */ }
|
|
|
|
|
|
other => out.push(other.as_os_str()),
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(out)
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Determine whether `path` is inside **any** writable root. Both `path`
|
|
|
|
|
|
// and roots are converted to absolute, normalized forms before the
|
|
|
|
|
|
// prefix check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
let is_path_writable = |p: &PathBuf| {
|
|
|
|
|
|
let abs = if p.is_absolute() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.clone()
|
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
|
cwd.join(p)
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
let abs = match normalize(&abs) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(v) => v,
|
|
|
|
|
|
None => return false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writable_roots
|
|
|
|
|
|
.iter()
|
|
|
|
|
|
.any(|writable_root| writable_root.is_path_writable(&abs))
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
for (path, change) in action.changes() {
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
match change {
|
2025-09-02 10:29:58 -07:00
|
|
|
|
ApplyPatchFileChange::Add { .. } | ApplyPatchFileChange::Delete { .. } => {
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
if !is_path_writable(path) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
ApplyPatchFileChange::Update { move_path, .. } => {
|
|
|
|
|
|
if !is_path_writable(path) {
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2025-08-19 13:22:02 -07:00
|
|
|
|
if let Some(dest) = move_path
|
|
|
|
|
|
&& !is_path_writable(dest)
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false;
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
true
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[cfg(test)]
|
|
|
|
|
|
mod tests {
|
|
|
|
|
|
use super::*;
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
use tempfile::TempDir;
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[test]
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn test_writable_roots_constraint() {
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Use a temporary directory as our workspace to avoid touching
|
|
|
|
|
|
// the real current working directory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
let tmp = TempDir::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
|
|
let cwd = tmp.path().to_path_buf();
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
let parent = cwd.parent().unwrap().to_path_buf();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Helper to build a single‑entry patch that adds a file at `p`.
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
let make_add_change = |p: PathBuf| ApplyPatchAction::new_add_for_test(&p, "".to_string());
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
fix: ensure apply_patch resolves relative paths against workdir or project cwd (#810)
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/800 kicked off some work to be more
disciplined about honoring the `cwd` param passed in rather than
assuming `std::env::current_dir()` as the `cwd`. As part of this, we
need to ensure `apply_patch` calls honor the appropriate `cwd` as well,
which is significant if the paths in the `apply_patch` arg are not
absolute paths themselves. Failing that:
- The `apply_patch` function call can contain an optional`workdir`
param, so:
- If specified and is an absolute path, it should be used to resolve
relative paths
- If specified and is a relative path, should be resolved against
`Config.cwd` and then any relative paths will be resolved against the
result
- If `workdir` is not specified on the function call, relative paths
should be resolved against `Config.cwd`
Note that we had a similar issue in the TypeScript CLI that was fixed in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/556.
As part of the fix, this PR introduces `ApplyPatchAction` so clients can
deal with that instead of the raw `HashMap<PathBuf,
ApplyPatchFileChange>`. This enables us to enforce, by construction,
that all paths contained in the `ApplyPatchAction` are absolute paths.
2025-05-04 12:32:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
let add_inside = make_add_change(cwd.join("inner.txt"));
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
let add_outside = make_add_change(parent.join("outside.txt"));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// Policy limited to the workspace only; exclude system temp roots so
|
|
|
|
|
|
// only `cwd` is writable by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
let policy_workspace_only = SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite {
|
|
|
|
|
|
writable_roots: vec![],
|
|
|
|
|
|
network_access: false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
exclude_tmpdir_env_var: true,
|
|
|
|
|
|
exclude_slash_tmp: true,
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
assert!(is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
|
|
|
|
|
|
&add_inside,
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&policy_workspace_only,
|
2025-05-04 10:57:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&cwd,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert!(!is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&add_outside,
|
|
|
|
|
|
&policy_workspace_only,
|
2025-05-04 10:57:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&cwd,
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
// With the parent dir explicitly added as a writable root, the
|
|
|
|
|
|
// outside write should be permitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
let policy_with_parent = SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite {
|
|
|
|
|
|
writable_roots: vec![parent.clone()],
|
|
|
|
|
|
network_access: false,
|
|
|
|
|
|
exclude_tmpdir_env_var: true,
|
|
|
|
|
|
exclude_slash_tmp: true,
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
assert!(is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
|
|
|
|
|
|
&add_outside,
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&policy_with_parent,
|
2025-05-04 10:57:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
&cwd,
|
fix: tighten up checks against writable folders for SandboxPolicy (#2338)
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
2025-08-15 09:06:15 -07:00
|
|
|
|
));
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|
2025-08-05 20:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[test]
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn test_request_escalated_privileges() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Should not be a trusted command
|
|
|
|
|
|
let command = vec!["git commit".to_string()];
|
|
|
|
|
|
let approval_policy = AskForApproval::OnRequest;
|
|
|
|
|
|
let sandbox_policy = SandboxPolicy::ReadOnly;
|
|
|
|
|
|
let approved: HashSet<Vec<String>> = HashSet::new();
|
|
|
|
|
|
let request_escalated_privileges = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let safety_check = assess_command_safety(
|
|
|
|
|
|
&command,
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval_policy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
&sandbox_policy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
&approved,
|
|
|
|
|
|
request_escalated_privileges,
|
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(safety_check, SafetyCheck::AskUser);
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[test]
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn test_request_escalated_privileges_no_sandbox_fallback() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
let command = vec!["git".to_string(), "commit".to_string()];
|
|
|
|
|
|
let approval_policy = AskForApproval::OnRequest;
|
|
|
|
|
|
let sandbox_policy = SandboxPolicy::ReadOnly;
|
|
|
|
|
|
let approved: HashSet<Vec<String>> = HashSet::new();
|
|
|
|
|
|
let request_escalated_privileges = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let safety_check = assess_command_safety(
|
|
|
|
|
|
&command,
|
|
|
|
|
|
approval_policy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
&sandbox_policy,
|
|
|
|
|
|
&approved,
|
|
|
|
|
|
request_escalated_privileges,
|
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let expected = match get_platform_sandbox() {
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some(sandbox_type) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove { sandbox_type },
|
|
|
|
|
|
None => SafetyCheck::AskUser,
|
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(safety_check, expected);
|
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
feat: initial import of Rust implementation of Codex CLI in codex-rs/ (#629)
As stated in `codex-rs/README.md`:
Today, Codex CLI is written in TypeScript and requires Node.js 22+ to
run it. For a number of users, this runtime requirement inhibits
adoption: they would be better served by a standalone executable. As
maintainers, we want Codex to run efficiently in a wide range of
environments with minimal overhead. We also want to take advantage of
operating system-specific APIs to provide better sandboxing, where
possible.
To that end, we are moving forward with a Rust implementation of Codex
CLI contained in this folder, which has the following benefits:
- The CLI compiles to small, standalone, platform-specific binaries.
- Can make direct, native calls to
[seccomp](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/seccomp.2.html) and
[landlock](https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/landlock.7.html) in
order to support sandboxing on Linux.
- No runtime garbage collection, resulting in lower memory consumption
and better, more predictable performance.
Currently, the Rust implementation is materially behind the TypeScript
implementation in functionality, so continue to use the TypeScript
implmentation for the time being. We will publish native executables via
GitHub Releases as soon as we feel the Rust version is usable.
2025-04-24 13:31:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
}
|