141–150 of 157 posts
Bind mounts can work fine. Setting them up does require root though. Easiest would be if the harness offered to enable containment. Awkwardly, it would require root.
In fact, it's possible to set up bind mounts without root on a modern Linux system, using a user namespace and a mount namespace.
A think a better practice is to not store those things in the repository folder in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% this. The idea that Codex should enforce this is putting the security boundary at the wrong layer. If you don’t want codes to access something, make it so it doesn’t have access.
The Codex bug tracker is a great insight into how wide the knowledge gap seem to be between users. The issue where people ask them to add back /undo or whatever it is instead of just learning to use git, probably reached 100 comments at least by now. People seemingly don't really understand the computers they use on a daily basis, and refuse to learn too.
Well that is kind of ironic, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol I don’t you realize how tech illiterate most normies are
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. Normies routinely hurt themselves trying to do professional work. We don't blame the tools when that happens, we blame the normies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that work? I've never seen it used. It seems easy to escape. The docs seem to suggest using alternate approaches. > Modern systems provide more secure ways to implement a restricted environment, such as jails, zones, or containers. https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Restr...
>> bash actually has a "restricted" mode ... > Does that work? I've never seen it used. It seems easy to escape. Yes, it does work for its intended purpose. It has often been used in combination with chroot[0] as well. > The docs seem to suggest using alternate approaches. >> Modern systems provide more secure ways to implement a restricted environment, such as jails, zones, or containers. These approaches are not mu…
Bash restricted mode needing a chroot may suggest that Claude also needs a chroot (or restricted file permissions, jail, etc).
My take is that Unix already solved all of these user access problems (what can a user read or execute), so the solution will probably be around containers or virtual machines. But the UX around booting up a container or virtual machine for agentic workflows needs to be simplified to the point where vibe coders who don’t know the first thing about Unix, VMs, or containers can still take advantage of the solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I've ever seen it used. I think the idea was back in the day when you wanted to let a user have a shell login (because that's the only way you could use a shared computer) but wanted to confine them to a specific directory and prevent them running anything that wasn't in the pre-defined PATH that you set for them.
Back in the day we'd use chroot to achieve something similar https://linux.die.net/man/1/chroot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
smolpi looks great! and smolvm does clean up ephemeral runs if the machine run exits gracefully. I'll take a deeper look into this edge case and fix it today.
Fixed and released in v1.3.1: https://github.com/smol-machines/smolvm/pull/497