Files
llmx/codex-rs/core/src/safety.rs
Michael Bolin 50924101d2 feat: add --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox (#1384)
This PR reworks `assess_command_safety()` so that the combination of
`AskForApproval::Never` and `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess` ensures
that commands are run without _any_ sandbox and the user should never be
prompted. In turn, it adds support for a new
`--dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox` flag (that cannot be used
with `--approval-policy` or `--full-auto`) that sets both of those
options.

Fixes https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/1254
2025-06-25 12:36:10 -07:00

259 lines
8.5 KiB
Rust
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
use std::collections::HashSet;
use std::path::Component;
use std::path::Path;
use std::path::PathBuf;
use codex_apply_patch::ApplyPatchAction;
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;
#[derive(Debug)]
pub enum SafetyCheck {
AutoApprove { sandbox_type: SandboxType },
AskUser,
Reject { reason: String },
}
pub fn assess_patch_safety(
action: &ApplyPatchAction,
policy: AskForApproval,
writable_roots: &[PathBuf],
cwd: &Path,
) -> SafetyCheck {
if action.is_empty() {
return SafetyCheck::Reject {
reason: "empty patch".to_string(),
};
}
match policy {
AskForApproval::OnFailure | AskForApproval::Never => {
// 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.
AskForApproval::UnlessTrusted => {
return SafetyCheck::AskUser;
}
}
if is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(action, writable_roots, cwd) {
SafetyCheck::AutoApprove {
sandbox_type: SandboxType::None,
}
} else if policy == AskForApproval::OnFailure {
// Only autoapprove 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
}
}
/// 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
pub fn assess_command_safety(
command: &[String],
approval_policy: AskForApproval,
sandbox_policy: &SandboxPolicy,
approved: &HashSet<Vec<String>>,
) -> SafetyCheck {
use AskForApproval::*;
use SandboxPolicy::*;
// 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.
if is_known_safe_command(command) || approved.contains(command) {
return SafetyCheck::AutoApprove {
sandbox_type: SandboxType::None,
};
}
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
}
(OnFailure, DangerFullAccess) | (Never, DangerFullAccess) => SafetyCheck::AutoApprove {
sandbox_type: SandboxType::None,
},
(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(),
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
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(
action: &ApplyPatchAction,
writable_roots: &[PathBuf],
cwd: &Path,
) -> bool {
// Earlyexit if there are no declared writable roots.
if writable_roots.is_empty() {
return false;
}
// 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,
};
writable_roots.iter().any(|root| {
let root_abs = if root.is_absolute() {
root.clone()
} else {
normalize(&cwd.join(root)).unwrap_or_else(|| cwd.join(root))
};
abs.starts_with(&root_abs)
})
};
for (path, change) in action.changes() {
match change {
ApplyPatchFileChange::Add { .. } | ApplyPatchFileChange::Delete => {
if !is_path_writable(path) {
return false;
}
}
ApplyPatchFileChange::Update { move_path, .. } => {
if !is_path_writable(path) {
return false;
}
if let Some(dest) = move_path {
if !is_path_writable(dest) {
return false;
}
}
}
}
}
true
}
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
#![allow(clippy::unwrap_used)]
use super::*;
#[test]
fn test_writable_roots_constraint() {
let cwd = std::env::current_dir().unwrap();
let parent = cwd.parent().unwrap().to_path_buf();
// Helper to build a singleentry map representing a patch that adds a
// file at `p`.
let make_add_change = |p: PathBuf| ApplyPatchAction::new_add_for_test(&p, "".to_string());
let add_inside = make_add_change(cwd.join("inner.txt"));
let add_outside = make_add_change(parent.join("outside.txt"));
assert!(is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
&add_inside,
&[PathBuf::from(".")],
&cwd,
));
let add_outside_2 = make_add_change(parent.join("outside.txt"));
assert!(!is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
&add_outside_2,
&[PathBuf::from(".")],
&cwd,
));
// With parent dir added as writable root, it should pass.
assert!(is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths(
&add_outside,
&[PathBuf::from("..")],
&cwd,
))
}
}