Proof Portal
Omarchy
ProbeLabsviewing a historical runA proof layer — requirements, tests and verified fixes — for two of Omarchy's subsystems: the application menu (launcher scripts, QML model, JSONC config, search and selection) and the lock screen (lock scripts, QML, PAM authentication). Scope is deliberately limited to those components of omacom/omarchy; the rest of the distribution is not covered.
Menu guard batch runs as one bash child with no deadline; a blocking guard freezes guard answers for the session
Low-severity issue, currently open.
Description
The issue as recorded.
Menu.qml evaluateGuards() runs every when:, checked: and disabled: guard of the menu in one child process, guardProc.command = ["bash", "-lc", script]. Nothing puts a deadline on that process. While guardProc.running is true, each later evaluateGuards() call only sets guardsPending and returns. The batch exit then starts the deferred evaluation.
One blocking guard expression keeps the whole batch alive indefinitely. Examples are a wait on a lock, a slow probe or a hung device query.
No later evaluation then starts. For the rest of the session the menu shows the last complete answer set. Rows stay checked, visible or dimmed for a state that no longer holds. A killed batch keeps the last complete set and does not adopt a half-read one. A when: hides a row only on an explicit false, so the failure shows stale rows, not hidden ones.
pocs/47t8-guard-batch-no-deadline.sh reproduces the defect. It runs the real evaluateGuards() and guardProc handlers from Menu.qml with the real MenuModel.guardScript(). The test adds a guard that waits on a held lock. At 4s the batch still runs with zero exits, and a re-evaluation spawns nothing (guardsPending=true).
A row's checked answer stays false after its state turns true. The control arm shows a healthy batch that lands its answers and refreshes after a state flip.
Affected requirements
The requirement(s) this issue violates — click through to the spec.
Severity, explained
Why this is rated the way it is — and the scoring signals behind the rating (each ⓘ explains the term).
- why this rating
- Reproducer-confirmed
- risk area
- Availability
- CVE surface
- None
Where it is
The code the issue lives in — peek the affected function inline to see it in context.
- shell/plugins/menu/Menu.qml evaluateGuards / guardProc (when:, checked:, disabled: guard batch)
How it's proven
The reproducer — an actual test that drives the real code and shows the issue happening. Run it yourself, or peek the test and the source it covers.
./pocs/47t8-guard-batch-no-deadline.sh
Reproduction steps
Technical steps for your engineers to confirm the issue by hand.
./pocs/47t8-guard-batch-no-deadline.sh
What protects you, and the fix
What limits your exposure today, and the planned remediation.
What protects you now
The defect affects only guard freshness. Rows keep their last complete answers, and actions still run what the row shows. To restore evaluation, remove or fix the blocking guard expression in the user menu file, then restart the shell. Killing the stuck guard bash process also works. The default menu ships no blocking guards.
The fix
Give the guard batch a deadline. One option wraps the child, for example `guardProc.command = ["timeout", "-k", "1", "2", "bash", "-lc", script]`. Another option is a watchdog Timer that stops guardProc after a bound and re-arms the pending evaluation. A third option is a per-guard timeout in MenuModel.guardLine, so that one slow guard cannot stall the rest of the batch. Pair the fix with an explicit staleness policy for the answers of a killed batch. Then remove the SYS-REQ-260922-47T8 external_call_timeout_bounded deferral and add a witness. Close criterion: pocs/47t8-guard-batch-no-deadline.sh flips red, because the blocked batch exits inside the observation window.
Blast radius
If you touch this issue, what else may need re-checking — the requirements it affects and the code and tests that hang off them. Historical view: authored trace links only — automatically derived links aren't reconstructible for past runs.
No authoredcode links reach these requirements in this historical reconstruction. Automatically derived code links aren't reconstructible for past runs, so implementing code may have existed without an authored trace.
Per-requirement evidence
For each requirement this finding touches: the implementing code, verifying tests, and proof obligations that discharge it.
Per-requirement evidence
For each requirement this finding touches: the implementing code, verifying tests, and proof obligations that discharge it.
Evidence trail
The raw evidence manifests behind this finding — superseded by the resolved reproducer above, kept here for traceability.
Evidence trail
The raw evidence manifests behind this finding — superseded by the resolved reproducer above, kept here for traceability.
- proof/evidence/ki-menu-guard-batch-no-deadline.yaml
Change history
Every recorded revision of this finding's source file — when it was added, edited, or re-classified, with the diff for each change.
Discussions
Discuss this with the proof team. Nothing changes in your audit automatically — you open a request and a staff member records any outcome inside the thread.