Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Non-flatpak sandboxed (firejail) applications cannot access portals #737

Open
WhyNotHugo opened this issue Mar 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
needs discussion Needs discussion on how to implement or fix the corresponding task unsandboxed This only applies to unsandboxed applications

Comments

@WhyNotHugo
Copy link
Contributor

Non-Flatpak applications cannot access the settings portal. E.g.: Running d-feet with Firejail results in this error:

image

However, in this scenario d-feet is sandboxed but is granted full read-write access to all D-Bus endpoints. It seems that the issue it that the portal itself is assuming that any sandboxed application is a Flatpak application, and ends up calling parse_app_info_from_flatpak_info, which fails in this case since /proc/%u/root is inaccessible to the current user.

@WhyNotHugo WhyNotHugo changed the title Non-flatpak sandboxed applications cannot access settings Non-flatpak sandboxed applications cannot access settings portal Mar 18, 2022
@TingPing TingPing changed the title Non-flatpak sandboxed applications cannot access settings portal Non-flatpak sandboxed (firejail) applications cannot access portals Mar 19, 2022
@TingPing
Copy link
Member

TingPing commented Mar 19, 2022

It seems that the issue it that the portal itself is assuming that any sandboxed application is a Flatpak application

The portal checks the processes filesystem to see if its a Flatpak. I'd assume handling this specific failure as unsandboxed wouldn't be a security issue but I'm not sure.

@WhyNotHugo
Copy link
Contributor Author

See #741

@GeorgesStavracas GeorgesStavracas added unsandboxed This only applies to unsandboxed applications needs discussion Needs discussion on how to implement or fix the corresponding task labels Oct 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs discussion Needs discussion on how to implement or fix the corresponding task unsandboxed This only applies to unsandboxed applications
Projects
Status: Triaged
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants