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.
The system shall install the PAM password stack for the lock screen.
Specification
The requirement exactly as authored — its complete prose text and, where present, the formal FRETish sentence it compiles to.
The system shall install the PAM password stack for the lock screen. Each run shall then take exactly one fingerprint step. It shall install the PAM fingerprint stack, with the resume recovery of fprintd, when the target user has an enrolled fingerprint. It shall remove them when the user has none. It shall keep the existing fingerprint configuration when the enrollment check fails. When started as root, the helper shall restrict PATH to trusted system directories and shall invoke fprintd-list only by its packaged absolute path.
when lock_auth_config_run the apply_lock shall always satisfy password_pam_installed & ((fingerprint_pam_installed & !fingerprint_pam_removed & !fingerprint_config_kept) | (!fingerprint_pam_installed & fingerprint_pam_removed & !fingerprint_config_kept) | (!fingerprint_pam_installed & !fingerprint_pam_removed & fingerprint_config_kept))
Rationale & tags
Why this requirement exists, and how it is categorised.
Rationale & tags
Why this requirement exists, and how it is categorised.
Install and upgrade callers start this helper as root. A user-writable PATH entry or a PATH-resolved fprintd-list would run attacker-controlled code with root privileges.
Verification & provenance
How this requirement was checked: the review trail, edit history, and the machine-analysis status terms (each ⓘ explains what it means).
Review
- Status
- in_review
- Reviewer
- Kimi Dogfood · AI agent
- Reviewed
- Sep 12, 2026, 23:50 UTC
History
- Created
- Sep 12, 2026, 19:42 UTC · Kimi Dogfood · AI agent
- Modified
- Oct 4, 2026, 19:16 UTC · Claude Code · AI agent
Hazard review
- scenarioreviewedaccess_deniedboundaryerror_handlingedge_caseconcurrency_scale
Parent-level partitions carried by satisfying children: access_denied via EKJP (root PATH restriction) and S154 (absolute-path fprintd), boundary via EKJP (EUID threshold), S154 (executable-bit edge) and Y0WT (enrollment threshold), error_handling via S154 and Y0WT (probe failure routes to removal), edge_case via Y0WT (multi-user enrollment). No obligation is held at this level alone. Catalog 1.11.0 re-review: input_domain not applicable, it reads no external text input. concurrency_scale applied, concurrent apply-lock runs write the same PAM files; the torn-write exposure is the deferred atomic_write obligation.
- propertynot applicable
Decomposition-level statement; the branch idempotence of rerunning the helper is observed but not specified here, and no other algebraic surface exists at this level.
- structuralnot applicable
Decomposition-level statement over one bash helper; structural surfaces are recorded at the child level.
- domainreviewed
atomic_write evaluated and DEFERRED (see obligation_deferrals): both PAM stacks are written by as_root tee in place rather than write-temp-rename, so an interrupted run can leave a torn /etc/pam.d/omarchy-lock-password that breaks password unlock until the helper reruns. The child Y0WT carries the same deferral for the fingerprint stack, so the class decomposes. Tracked debt, not an accepted gap.
Change history
Every recorded revision of this requirement's source file — newest first, each with its commit message and the diff for that change.
Review history
Human and AI-agent approvals of this requirement — the 'why was this approved' lineage, each with the reviewer's justification and the code it cites.
- Claude Code · AI agentApprovedSpec conformanceOct 4, 2026 · last weekREVIEW-261004-AL7K
Re-review after upstream #7158 (879d6583) and the revised FRETish (exactly one fingerprint step per run: install, remove or keep). Read bin/omarchy-apply-lock at upstream quattro 035ce29f. The password stack is written by tee at the top of every run, before the fingerprint step. The fingerprint step is one if/elif/else over the probe answer: a listed print row installs the resume hook, the stop-timeout drop-in and the PAM fingerprint stack; fprintd's empty-enrollment answer or a missing fprintd-list removes the stack and the hook; any other answer prints the could-not-check line and keeps the files. The three violation rows need the password write or the if/elif/else removed, so they are dispositioned defensive. Witnesses in test/shell.d/apply-lock-test.sh: install at the hardened run, keep at the unknown-probe run (the password stack still written), remove at the not-enrolled run, no side effect without a run. Requirement change recorded by agent:claude-code under the owner's delegation.
Cited code (7) - Kimi Dogfood · AI agentApprovedSpec conformanceSep 12, 2026 · 4 weeks agoREVIEW-18
PAM installation matches: password stack installed always; fingerprint stack installed only when fprintd-list (absolute /usr/bin path, PATH restricted under EUID 0) reports an enrolled print, removed otherwise.
Cited code (1)
Obligations
What this requirement must witness to be considered satisfied — the required evidence, and the tests that discharge each one.
1 obligation · 1 deferred
Browse the catalogueFilesystem writes that produce externally-visible state shall use the write-temp-rename pattern (or an equivalent atomic primitive); partial writes shall not be observable.
Deferred — tracked by a finding withheld pending disclosure.
- nominalrequireddeferredWitnessing deferred — accepted while the tracking known issue stays open.
Formula evidence
The formal formula behind this requirement, the variables it is written over, and the tests that exercise it (each term is explained inline).
Formula evidence
The formal formula behind this requirement, the variables it is written over, and the tests that exercise it (each term is explained inline).
FRETish formula
when lock_auth_config_run the apply_lock shall always satisfy password_pam_installed & ((fingerprint_pam_installed & !fingerprint_pam_removed & !fingerprint_config_kept) | (!fingerprint_pam_installed & fingerprint_pam_removed & !fingerprint_config_kept) | (!fingerprint_pam_installed & !fingerprint_pam_removed & fingerprint_config_kept))
Witnesses· 4 scenarios total
- apply-lock-test.sh:1exercises 4 condition scenarios
MC/DC truth table· 7 rows
Each row assigns the formula's conditions (T/F) and shows the Result— the formula's value for that input row, not a test pass/fail. A row proves a condition when flipping only that condition flips the outcome. The test that covers each row is linked.
mcdc:ignoreNo-actionfalse-result row satisfied by designUncoveredneeds a covering test| # | fingerprint_config_kept | fingerprint_pam_installed | fingerprint_pam_removed | lock_auth_config_run | password_pam_installed | Result | Proves | Covering test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | F | F | F | F | F | T | lock_auth_config_run | |
| 2 | F | F | F | T | F | F | lock_auth_config_run | Exempted · defensive — the password PAM stack is written unconditionally at the top of every run (reviewed: REVIEW-261004-AL7K) |
| 3 | F | F | F | T | T | F | fingerprint_config_kept | Exempted · defensive — the fingerprint step is one if/elif/else over the probe answer, so every run installs, removes or keeps; a run with none of the three needs a broken build (reviewed: REVIEW-261004-AL7K) |
| 4 | F | F | T | T | T | T | fingerprint_pam_removed | |
| 5 | F | T | F | T | T | T | fingerprint_pam_installed | |
| 6 | T | F | F | T | F | F | password_pam_installed | Exempted · defensive — the password stack is written before the fingerprint step, so a run that keeps the fingerprint configuration has written it (reviewed: REVIEW-261004-AL7K) |
| 7 | T | F | F | T | T | T | fingerprint_config_kept |
Its place
How this requirement connects — what proves it, what it affects, and what it rests on. Authored links only here; automatically derived links come from the audit index.
Loading graph…
Trace evidence
The concrete artifacts linked to this requirement — implementing code, verifying tests, documents, and the findings raised against it.
No findings affect this requirement
Nothing was flagged against this requirement in the pinned run.
Impact
Blast radius — authored trace links only (automatically derived links come from the audit index and aren't shown here).
Impact
Blast radius — authored trace links only (automatically derived links come from the audit index and aren't shown here).
If you change this
Requirements (5)
- When omarchy-apply-lock runs with EUID 0, it shall replace…lock · SW
- omarchy-apply-lock shall test fingerprint enrollment by…lock · SW
- When /usr/bin/fprintd-list reports that the target user has…lock · SW
- A failed probe is an answer from /usr/bin/fprintd-list that…lock · SW
- Before omarchy-apply-lock writes the PAM fingerprint stack,…lock · SW
Files to re-check (1)
- omarchy-apply-lockbin/omarchy-apply-lock
Tests to re-run (1)
- apply-lock-test.shtest/shell.d/apply-lock-test.sh
What this rests on
Parent requirements (1)
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.