Unified exec isn't working on Linux because we don't provide the correct
arg0.
The library we use for pty management doesn't allow setting arg0
separately from executable. Use the same aliasing strategy we use for
`apply_patch` for `codex-linux-sandbox`.
Use `#[ctor]` hack to dispatch codex-linux-sandbox calls.
Addresses https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/6450
Historically, Codex CLI has treated `apply_patch` (and its sometimes
misspelling, `applypatch`) as a "virtual CLI," intercepting it when it
appears as the first arg to `command` for the `"container.exec",
`"shell"`, or `"local_shell"` tools.
This approach has a known limitation where if, say, the model created a
Python script that runs `apply_patch` and then tried to run the Python
script, we have no insight as to what the model is trying to do and the
Python Script would fail because `apply_patch` was never really on the
`PATH`.
One way to solve this problem is to require users to install an
`apply_patch` executable alongside the `codex` executable (or at least
put it someplace where Codex can discover it). Though to keep Codex CLI
as a standalone executable, we exploit "the arg0 trick" where we create
a temporary directory with an entry named `apply_patch` and prepend that
directory to the `PATH` for the duration of the invocation of Codex.
- On UNIX, `apply_patch` is a symlink to `codex`, which now changes its
behavior to behave like `apply_patch` if arg0 is `apply_patch` (or
`applypatch`)
- On Windows, `apply_patch.bat` is a batch script that runs `codex
--codex-run-as-apply-patch %*`, as Codex also changes its behavior if
the first argument is `--codex-run-as-apply-patch`.
Codex created this PR from the following prompt:
> upgrade this entire repo to Rust 1.89. Note that this requires
updating codex-rs/rust-toolchain.toml as well as the workflows in
.github/. Make sure that things are "clippy clean" as this change will
likely uncover new Clippy errors. `just fmt` and `cargo clippy --tests`
are sufficient to check for correctness
Note this modifies a lot of lines because it folds nested `if`
statements using `&&`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2465).
* #2467
* __->__ #2465
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 "${EXPLOIT_DIR}/original.txt"
```
Admittedly, this change merits a proper integration test, but I think I
will have to do that in a follow-up PR.
This introduces some special behavior to the CLIs that are using the
`codex-arg0` crate where if `arg1` is `--codex-run-as-apply-patch`, then
it will run as if `apply_patch arg2` were invoked. This is important
because it means we can do things like:
```
SANDBOX_TYPE=landlock # or seatbelt for macOS
codex debug "${SANDBOX_TYPE}" -- codex --codex-run-as-apply-patch PATCH
```
which gives us a way to run `apply_patch` while ensuring it adheres to
the sandbox the user specified.
While it would be nice to use the `arg0` trick like we are currently
doing for `codex-linux-sandbox`, there is no way to specify the `arg0`
for the underlying command when running under `/usr/bin/sandbox-exec`,
so it will not work for us in this case.
Admittedly, we could have also supported this via a custom environment
variable (e.g., `CODEX_ARG0`), but since environment variables are
inherited by child processes, that seemed like a potentially leakier
abstraction.
This change, as well as our existing reliance on checking `arg0`, place
additional requirements on those who include `codex-core`. Its
`README.md` has been updated to reflect this.
While we could have just added an `apply-patch` subcommand to the
`codex` multitool CLI, that would not be sufficient for the standalone
`codex-exec` CLI, which is something that we distribute as part of our
GitHub releases for those who know they will not be using the TUI and
therefore prefer to use a slightly smaller executable:
https://github.com/openai/codex/releases/tag/rust-v0.10.0
To that end, this PR adds an integration test to ensure that the
`--codex-run-as-apply-patch` option works with the standalone
`codex-exec` CLI.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/1702).
* #1705
* #1703
* __->__ #1702
* #1698
* #1697
