fix: refuse a PATH without /usr/sbin, before the token prompt #140

Merged
andres merged 3 commits from build/139-sbin-path-preflight into main 2026-08-02 07:57:52 +00:00

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
7aed6ea098 fix: preflight every admin binary a command uses, not only useradd
Some checks failed
ci / check (pull_request) Successful in 55s
ci / install (pull_request) Successful in 3s
ci / db-integration (pull_request) Successful in 3s
labels / labels (pull_request) Failing after 7s
Addresses codex (1538) and kimi (1539): the sweep caught the reported
incident and not the class. Both are right, and there were four sites, not
three.

  forgejo-runner-install  useradd -> useradd usermod   (usermod -aG docker,
                          reached only after the token has been spent)
  users-apply             useradd usermod -> + groupadd (called two lines
                          into convergence), and visudo when a role needs it
  bootstrap-tenant        NEW site (kimi) — usermod -aG docker runs AFTER
                          docker and node are installed, so an unguarded
                          PATH fails it mid-convergence on a changed machine
  runner-install          unchanged: useradd is the only admin binary it
                          calls, and declaring more would refuse boxes that
                          are fine

visudo is checked after the sudo-install block rather than beside the root
check, because until sudo is installed its absence has an innocent cause.
Below that block it does not: sudo is present, so a missing visudo means
/usr/sbin is off PATH. That case is the quiet one — the sudoers block reads
`command -v visudo` as "no sudo on the box means no role needed it", so
apply reported success having granted roles without the escalation those
roles exist for. The other three sites at least crash.

Measured which binaries this covers (Debian 13): useradd, usermod, groupadd,
userdel, groupdel and visudo are /usr/sbin; gpasswd is /usr/bin and so is
NOT affected and deliberately not preflighted. visudo shares the directory
but ships in `sudo`, not `passwd` — which is why it needs its own treatment.

Tests: the sbin-less fixtures could only ever prove the FIRST binary is
named, since useradd wins every race. Six new checks use partial PATHs that
resolve the earlier binaries and withhold exactly one, plus the ordering
assertions (no token prompt, no group created) and the negative case — a
users file needing no sudo must NOT be refused for a missing visudo.

Refs #139
2026-08-02 00:05:02 +00:00
5187b74fa0 Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into pr140 2026-08-01 23:58:21 +00:00
7f2501d0fe fix: refuse a PATH without /usr/sbin, before the token prompt
Some checks failed
ci / check (pull_request) Failing after 7s
ci / install (pull_request) Successful in 4s
ci / db-integration (pull_request) Successful in 4s
labels / labels (pull_request) Failing after 7s
Reported from a real ci-box: `rig forgejo-runner install` read a registration
token off the operator's terminal and then died with

  …/forgejo-runner-install.sh: line 250: useradd: command not found

rig checked `id -u` and concluded it could administer the machine. Being root
and being able to FIND the admin binaries are different facts, and only the
first was asserted. `su` without `-`, sudo with a sanitised secure_path, and
several container images all produce a root shell with no /usr/sbin on PATH,
which is where useradd lives.

Three call sites had it: both runner installers and users apply. The last is
the worst — it runs mid-convergence, so a PATH-shorn root could fail partway
through a user sweep rather than before it starts.

require_admin_bins refuses rather than repairing PATH itself: a command that
quietly prepends /usr/sbin teaches the operator nothing and leaves a
misconfigured host misconfigured. The message names the remedy and,
deliberately, not this script — echoing an internal path back at someone who
typed `rig forgejo-runner install` is the unhelpful half of the original error.

It sits beside each root check, so identity and capability are asserted
together and before anything is spent. A secret typed for a run that could
never succeed is the avoidable half of this bug, and there is a test for
exactly that ordering.

Closes #139

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 18:39:03 +00:00