## Why
We currently carry multiple permission-related concepts directly on
`Config` for shell/unified-exec behavior (`approval_policy`,
`sandbox_policy`, `network`, `shell_environment_policy`,
`windows_sandbox_mode`).
Consolidating these into one in-memory struct makes permission handling
easier to reason about and sets up the next step: supporting named
permission profiles (`[permissions.PROFILE_NAME]`) without changing
behavior now.
This change is mostly mechanical: it updates existing callsites to go
through `config.permissions`, but it does not yet refactor those
callsites to take a single `Permissions` value in places where multiple
permission fields are still threaded separately.
This PR intentionally **does not** change the on-disk `config.toml`
format yet and keeps compatibility with legacy config keys.
## What Changed
- Introduced `Permissions` in `core/src/config/mod.rs`.
- Added `Config::permissions` and moved effective runtime permission
fields under it:
- `approval_policy`
- `sandbox_policy`
- `network`
- `shell_environment_policy`
- `windows_sandbox_mode`
- Updated config loading/building so these effective values are still
derived from the same existing config inputs and constraints.
- Updated Windows sandbox helpers/resolution to read/write via
`permissions`.
- Threaded the new field through all permission consumers across core
runtime, app-server, CLI/exec, TUI, and sandbox summary code.
- Updated affected tests to reference `config.permissions.*`.
- Renamed the struct/field from
`EffectivePermissions`/`effective_permissions` to
`Permissions`/`permissions` and aligned variable naming accordingly.
## Verification
- `just fix -p codex-core -p codex-tui -p codex-cli -p codex-app-server
-p codex-exec -p codex-utils-sandbox-summary`
- `cargo build -p codex-core -p codex-tui -p codex-cli -p
codex-app-server -p codex-exec -p codex-utils-sandbox-summary`
`SandboxPolicy::ReadOnly` previously implied broad read access and could
not express a narrower read surface.
This change introduces an explicit read-access model so we can support
user-configurable read restrictions in follow-up work, while preserving
current behavior today.
It also ensures unsupported backends fail closed for restricted-read
policies instead of silently granting broader access than intended.
## What
- Added `ReadOnlyAccess` in protocol with:
- `Restricted { include_platform_defaults, readable_roots }`
- `FullAccess`
- Updated `SandboxPolicy` to carry read-access configuration:
- `ReadOnly { access: ReadOnlyAccess }`
- `WorkspaceWrite { ..., read_only_access: ReadOnlyAccess }`
- Preserved existing behavior by defaulting current construction paths
to `ReadOnlyAccess::FullAccess`.
- Threaded the new fields through sandbox policy consumers and call
sites across `core`, `tui`, `linux-sandbox`, `windows-sandbox`, and
related tests.
- Updated Seatbelt policy generation to honor restricted read roots by
emitting scoped read rules when full read access is not granted.
- Added fail-closed behavior on Linux and Windows backends when
restricted read access is requested but not yet implemented there
(`UnsupportedOperation`).
- Regenerated app-server protocol schema and TypeScript artifacts,
including `ReadOnlyAccess`.
## Compatibility / rollout
- Runtime behavior remains unchanged by default (`FullAccess`).
- API/schema changes are in place so future config wiring can enable
restricted read access without another policy-shape migration.
This adds support for `allowed_sandbox_modes` in `requirements.toml` and
provides legacy support for constraining sandbox modes in
`managed_config.toml`. This is converted to `Constrained<SandboxPolicy>`
in `ConfigRequirements` and applied to `Config` such that constraints
are enforced throughout the harness.
Note that, because `managed_config.toml` is deprecated, we do not add
support for the new `external-sandbox` variant recently introduced in
https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/8290. As noted, that variant is not
supported in `config.toml` today, but can be configured programmatically
via app server.
Constrain `approval_policy` through new `admin_policy` config.
This PR will:
1. Add a `admin_policy` section to config, with a single field (for now)
`allowed_approval_policies`. This list constrains the set of
user-settable `approval_policy`s.
2. Introduce a new `Constrained<T>` type, which combines a current value
and a validator function. The validator function ensures disallowed
values are not set.
3. Change the type of `approval_policy` on `Config` and
`SessionConfiguration` from `AskForApproval` to
`Constrained<AskForApproval>`. The validator function is set by the
values passed into `allowed_approval_policies`.
4. `GenericDisplayRow`: add a `disabled_reason: Option<String>`. When
set, it disables selection of the value and indicates as such in the
menu. This also makes it unselectable with arrow keys or numbers. This
is used in the `/approvals` menu.
Follow ups are:
1. Do the same thing to `sandbox_policy`.
2. Propagate the allowed set of values through app-server for the
extension (though already this should prevent app-server from setting
this values, it's just that we want to disable UI elements that are
unsettable).
Happy to split this PR up if you prefer, into the logical numbered areas
above. Especially if there are parts we want to gavel on separately
(e.g. admin_policy).
Disabled full access:
<img width="1680" height="380" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1fb61c8c-1fcb-4dc4-8355-2293edb52ba0"
/>
Disabled `--yolo` on startup:
<img width="749" height="76" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a1211a0-6eb1-40d6-a1d7-439c41e94ddb"
/>
CODEX-4087
helpful in the future if we want more granularity for requesting
escalated permissions:
e.g when running in readonly sandbox, model can request to escalate to a
sandbox that allows writes
In this PR, I am exploring migrating task kind to an invocation of
Codex. The main reason would be getting rid off multiple
`ConversationHistory` state and streamlining our context/history
management.
This approach depends on opening a channel between the sub-codex and
codex. This channel is responsible for forwarding `interactive`
(`approvals`) and `non-interactive` events. The `task` is responsible
for handling those events.
This opens the door for implementing `codex as a tool`, replacing
`compact` and `review`, and potentially subagents.
One consideration is this code is very similar to `app-server` specially
in the approval part. If in the future we wanted an interactive
`sub-codex` we should consider using `codex-mcp`
