Skip to content

[doc] Policy: state load-gate scope and the SetFS exception#26

Merged
vt128 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
doc/policy-scope-honesty
Jun 19, 2026
Merged

[doc] Policy: state load-gate scope and the SetFS exception#26
vt128 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
doc/policy-scope-honesty

Conversation

@vt128

@vt128 vt128 commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Doc-only. Makes the A4 security model honest about its boundaries (independent review 2026-06-20).

The Policy load gate now covers every named-module path a script can load(): builtin, custom (AddModule*), dynamic, and script modules (AddModuleScript, matched by their registered .star name — fixed in #24).

It does not gate SetFS: a host-mounted fs.FS is a raw, deliberate filesystem grant with no module-name registry to match against, so a default-deny Box that also calls SetFS exposes whatever that filesystem contains. The doc now tells hosts to curate the mounted FS (or omit SetFS) under a restrictive policy — closing the "is there another bypass?" question with an explicit, documented scope rather than a silent gap.

Make the security model honest about its boundaries (independent review,
2026-06-20): the load gate now covers every named-module path - builtin,
custom, dynamic, and script modules (AddModuleScript, by their .star name).
It does NOT gate SetFS: a host-mounted fs.FS is a raw filesystem grant with
no module-name registry to match, so a default-deny Box that also calls
SetFS exposes that filesystem's contents. Documented so hosts curate the
mounted FS (or omit SetFS) under a restrictive policy.
@codacy-production

codacy-production Bot commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

🟢 Metrics 0 complexity · 0 duplication

Metric Results
Complexity 0
Duplication 0

View in Codacy

🟢 Coverage ∅ diff coverage · +0.00% coverage variation

Metric Results
Coverage variation +0.00% coverage variation (-1.00%)
Diff coverage diff coverage

View coverage diff in Codacy

Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (9c74acf) 1154 1145 99.22%
Head commit (a32d5fe) 1154 (+0) 1145 (+0) 99.22% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#26) 0 0 ∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

NEW Get contextual insights on your PRs based on Codacy's metrics, along with PR and Jira context, without leaving GitHub. Enable AI reviewer
TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 19, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.95%. Comparing base (9c74acf) to head (a32d5fe).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master      #26   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.95%   98.95%           
=======================================
  Files          12       12           
  Lines         862      862           
=======================================
  Hits          853      853           
  Misses          5        5           
  Partials        4        4           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@vt128 vt128 merged commit 66e4463 into master Jun 19, 2026
11 checks passed
@vt128 vt128 deleted the doc/policy-scope-honesty branch June 19, 2026 19:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant