Conversation
This was referenced Apr 17, 2026
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: ad29119e25
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Comment on lines
+930
to
+933
| let permission_profile = permission_profile_override_from_config(config); | ||
| let sandbox = permission_profile | ||
| .is_none() | ||
| .then(|| sandbox_mode_from_policy(config.permissions.sandbox_policy.get().clone())) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These lines always derive permission_profile from the local Config and then suppress sandbox, even when ThreadParamsMode::Remote is in use. In remote mode we already avoid forwarding local-only values like cwd/model_provider, but config.permissions.permission_profile() is runtime-expanded with local filesystem entries, so sending it to a remote app-server can apply client-local absolute paths and miss the server-side workspace carveouts it would normally derive. This affects thread/start, thread/resume, and thread/fork because they all share this override path.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18280
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0164ac6 to
853bd3b
Compare
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18279
branch
2 times, most recently
from
536d5c4 to
c100e8e
Compare
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18280
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ab0e270 to
c013a96
Compare
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18279
branch
2 times, most recently
from
0d7a36c to
c897233
Compare
bolinfest
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2026
## Why #18275 anchors session-scoped `:cwd` and `:project_roots` grants to the request cwd before recording them for reuse. Relative deny glob entries need the same treatment. Without anchoring, a stored session permission can keep a pattern such as `**/*.env` relative, then reinterpret that deny against a later turn cwd. That makes the persisted profile depend on the cwd at reuse time instead of the cwd that was reviewed and approved. ## What changed `intersect_permission_profiles` now materializes retained `FileSystemPath::GlobPattern` entries against the request cwd, matching the existing materialization for cwd-sensitive special paths. Materialized accepted grants are now deduplicated before deny retention runs. This keeps the sticky-grant preapproval shape stable when a repeated request is merged with the stored grant and both `:cwd = write` and the materialized absolute cwd write are present. The preapproval check compares against the same materialized form, so a later request for the same cwd-relative deny glob still matches the stored anchored grant instead of re-prompting or rejecting. Tests cover both the storage path and the preapproval path: a session-scoped `:cwd = write` grant with `**/*.env = none` is stored with both the cwd write and deny glob anchored to the original request cwd, cannot be reused from a later cwd, and remains preapproved when re-requested from the original cwd after merging with the stored grant. ## Verification - `cargo test -p codex-sandboxing policy_transforms` - `cargo test -p codex-core --lib relative_deny_glob_grants_remain_preapproved_after_materialization` - `cargo clippy -p codex-sandboxing --tests -- -D clippy::redundant_clone` - `cargo clippy -p codex-core --lib -- -D clippy::redundant_clone` --- [//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER) Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/18867). * #18288 * #18287 * #18286 * #18285 * #18284 * #18283 * #18282 * #18281 * #18280 * #18279 * #18278 * #18277 * #18276 * __->__ #18867
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18279
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2b145dd to
9048348
Compare
bolinfest
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2026
## Why `Permissions` should not store a separate `PermissionProfile` that can drift from the constrained `SandboxPolicy` and network settings. The active profile needs to be derived from the same constrained values that already honor `requirements.toml`. ## What changed This adds derivation of the active `PermissionProfile` from the constrained runtime permission settings and exposes that derived value through config snapshots and thread state. The app-server can then report the active profile without introducing a second source of truth. ## Verification - `cargo test -p codex-core --test all permissions_messages -- --nocapture` - `cargo test -p codex-core --test all request_permissions -- --nocapture` --- [//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER) Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/18277). * #18288 * #18287 * #18286 * #18285 * #18284 * #18283 * #18282 * #18281 * #18280 * #18279 * #18278 * __->__ #18277
bolinfest
force-pushed
the
pr18279
branch
3 times, most recently
from
89a0761 to
d29fd8d
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
After app-server can accept
PermissionProfile, first-party clients should stop preferring legacy sandbox fields when they have canonical permission information available. This keeps the migration moving without removing legacy compatibility yet.What changed
This updates the exec and TUI app-server clients to send
permissionProfileoverrides derived from config, while preserving legacy sandbox fallback behavior when a profile is not available.Verification
cargo test -p codex-tui permissions -- --nocapturecargo test -p codex-core --test all permissions_messages -- --nocaptureStack created with Sapling. Best reviewed with ReviewStack.