## Summary
Allow the user to approve a request_permissions_tool request with the
condition that all commands in the rest of the turn are reviewed by
guardian, regardless of sandbox status.
## Testing
- [x] Added unit tests
- [x] Ran locally
## Why
Permission approval responses must not be able to grant more access than
the tool requested. Moving this flow to `PermissionProfile` means the
comparison must be profile-shaped instead of `SandboxPolicy`-shaped, and
cwd-relative special paths such as `:cwd` and `:project_roots` must stay
anchored to the turn that produced the request.
## What changed
This implements semantic `PermissionProfile` intersection in
`codex-sandboxing` for file-system and network permissions. The
intersection accepts narrower path grants, rejects broader grants,
preserves deny-read carve-outs and glob scan depth, and materializes
cwd-dependent special-path grants to absolute paths before they can be
recorded for reuse.
The request-permissions response paths now use that intersection
consistently. App-server captures the request turn cwd before waiting
for the client response, includes that cwd in the v2 approval params,
and core stores the requested profile plus cwd for direct TUI/client
responses and Guardian decisions before recording turn- or
session-scoped grants. The TUI app-server bridge now preserves the
app-server request cwd when converting permission approval params into
core events.
## Verification
- `cargo test -p codex-sandboxing intersect_permission_profiles --
--nocapture`
- `cargo test -p codex-app-server request_permissions_response --
--nocapture`
- `cargo test -p codex-core
request_permissions_response_materializes_session_cwd_grants_before_recording
-- --nocapture`
- `cargo check -p codex-tui --tests`
- `cargo check --tests`
- `cargo test -p codex-tui
app_server_request_permissions_preserves_file_system_permissions`
## Why
`PermissionProfile` should only describe the per-command permissions we
still want to grant dynamically. Keeping
`MacOsSeatbeltProfileExtensions` in that surface forced extra macOS-only
approval, protocol, schema, and TUI branches for a capability we no
longer want to expose.
## What changed
- Removed the macOS-specific permission-profile types from
`codex-protocol`, the app-server v2 API, and the generated
schema/TypeScript artifacts.
- Deleted the core and sandboxing plumbing that threaded
`MacOsSeatbeltProfileExtensions` through execution requests and seatbelt
construction.
- Simplified macOS seatbelt generation so it always includes the fixed
read-only preferences allowlist instead of carrying a configurable
profile extension.
- Removed the macOS additional-permissions UI/docs/test coverage and
deleted the obsolete macOS permission modules.
- Tightened `request_permissions` intersection handling so explicitly
empty requested read lists are preserved only when that field was
actually granted, avoiding zero-grant responses being stored as active
permissions.
## Summary
request_permissions flows should support persisting results for the
session.
Open Question: Still deciding if we need within-turn approvals - this
adds complexity but I could see it being useful
## Testing
- [x] Updated unit tests
---------
Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>
Adds a built-in `request_permissions` tool and wires it through the
Codex core, protocol, and app-server layers so a running turn can ask
the client for additional permissions instead of relying on a static
session policy.
The new flow emits a `RequestPermissions` event from core, tracks the
pending request by call ID, forwards it through app-server v2 as an
`item/permissions/requestApproval` request, and resumes the tool call
once the client returns an approved subset of the requested permission
profile.
Dylan Hurd ·
Michael Bolin ·
Jack Mousseau ·