Currently, it will always look in user 0 since it uses the DPM from
mContext, which will always be from user 0 as WPMS is in the system
server process.
Extend DPMI to provide the necessary external helper API. This is
preferable to just using createContextAsUser before getting the DPM
instance since it avoids a second binding.
Fixes: 144048540
Fixes: 172682826
Bug: 153995973
Bug: 174642338
Test: atest com.android.cts.devicepolicy.MixedManagedProfileOwnerTest#testSetWallpaper_disallowed
Change-Id: I52b71000fac31ff6725ddded58206f69b263ae33
(cherry picked from commit 5b36ee3f1d)
Delegate the resetting of the INTERACT_ACROSS_PROFILES app-op to
DevicePolicyManager, which knows whether it should be pre-granted and
knows to apply it equally across all users in the profile group.
Further unit tests for DevicePolicyManagerInternal will be added in
b/175440570 when we have the better infra for that.
The CrossProfileAppsServiceImpl changes look more complex than they are.
They consist of the following:
- Inclusive language changes to 'allowlist'
- Static imports of permissions to improve readability
- Previously, the setInteractAcrossProfilesAppOp method would set the
app-op for every user within the profile group of the 'calling user'.
However, given that we are now exposing this as a server-side internal
API where we need to pass in a user ID (from AppOpsService), we don't
necessarily have the guarantee that the 'calling user' is in the same
profile group. So we split it up: the client-side API and AIDL API still
set the app-op for the calling profile group, whereas the internal API
sets the app-op for every user within the profile group of the provided
user. The changes simply abstract away references to the 'calling user
ID'.
Fixes: 166561076
Bug: 175440570
Test: atest services/robotests/src/com/android/server/pm/CrossProfileAppsServiceImplRoboTest.java --verbose -c
Test: manual
Change-Id: I2181fe66022aaf6c3e6d784c0569d2f41ab66537
(cherry picked from commit d004f41188)
Add a path for GNSS time suggestions to get to the time detector.
Bug: 157265008
Test: atest services/tests/servicestests/src/com/android/server/timedetector/TimeDetectorStrategyImplTest.java
Test: atest android.app.timedetector
Change-Id: I5cb12b5545652ed885b72a3170940050ce0628a6
Merged-In: I5cb12b5545652ed885b72a3170940050ce0628a6
The ConnectivityThread class is being separated into a specific
connectivity JAR; transport-specific managers like LowpanManager should
not be sharing the ConnectivityThread.
As callbacks from ILowpanManager / ILowpanManagerListener already do not
have any ordering guarantee with ConnectivityManager callbacks, the
impact of this change should be minimal.
LowpanManager is unused in AOSP, and not part of the API.
Bug: 174436414
Test: m
Change-Id: I23483ed7c4a6c5283b365430a3e503a0dd86c2cb
Base CL ag/12885739 introduced unconditional enforcement of the BACKUP
permission for callers of BackupManagerService.isBackupServiceActive()
in the service, but dropped the enforcement on the app process side
(BackupManager).
This CL makes the behavior change conditional on a compat ChangeId.
Bug: 158482162
Test: Manually checked that an app similar to the code sample from
http://b/158482162#comment1 can reproduce the behavior.
This is true both before the base CL and after this CL, when
the app targets an old SDK version (26).
Test: Checked that both (a) before this CL, (b) after this CL where
the change is manually enabled for the app via the below commands,
the app runs into a SecurityException instead:
$ adb shell am compat enable 158482162 com.example.tester
$ adb shell dumpsys platform_compat | grep 158482162
ChangeId(158482162; name=IS_BACKUP_SERVICE_ACTIVE_ENFORCE_PERMISSION_IN_SERVICE; enableSinceTargetSdk=31; packageOverrides={com.example.tester=true})
Change-Id: I58e5d2a0b438296137fd76720636c8fdce740ded
Merged-In: I58e5d2a0b438296137fd76720636c8fdce740ded
(cherry picked from commit 7671f0d95c)
BackupManager runs in the client process, whereas BackupManagerService
runs in the system server process. Therefore, apps permissions need should
be enforced on the service side.
Bug: 158482162
Test: Manually checked that a sample app encounters SecurityException
after but not before this CL, when running code similar to the
sample in http://b/158482162#comment1 to figure out whether
isBackupServiceActive() for its own uid.
Change-Id: I59693819542a80a065a9c88373393b0ba0dbef65
Merged-In: I59693819542a80a065a9c88373393b0ba0dbef65
(cherry picked from commit b2ab2c414f)
Iteration based on areas of tree where detailed ownership was found
to be missing during routine code reviews.
Also add more detailed examples to OWNERS.md.
Bug: 174932174
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Change-Id: I46ccef33b34594181ae8dc62973d68020f827d6b
As general background, OWNERS files expedite code reviews by helping
code authors quickly find relevant reviewers, and they also ensure
that stakeholders are involved in code changes in their areas.
Some teams under frameworks/base/ have been using OWNERS files
successfully for many years, and we're ready to expand them to cover
more areas. Here's the historical coverage statistics for the last
two years of changes before these new OWNERS changes land:
-- 56% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 17% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 25% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
Working closely with team leads, we've now identified clear OWNERS on
a per-package basis, and we're using "include" directives whenever
possible to to simplify future maintenance. With this extensive
effort, we've now improved our coverage as follows:
-- 98% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
This specific change is automatically generated by a script that
identifies relevant "include" directives.
Bug: 174932174
Test: manual
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Merged-In: I3480ddf2fe7ba3dfb922b459d4da01fa17a2c813
Change-Id: I3480ddf2fe7ba3dfb922b459d4da01fa17a2c813
As general background, OWNERS files expedite code reviews by helping
code authors quickly find relevant reviewers, and they also ensure
that stakeholders are involved in code changes in their areas.
Some teams under frameworks/base/ have been using OWNERS files
successfully for many years, and we're ready to expand them to cover
more areas. Here's the historical coverage statistics for the last
two years of changes before these new OWNERS changes land:
-- 56% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 17% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 25% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
Working closely with team leads, we've now identified clear OWNERS on
a per-package basis, and we're using "include" directives whenever
possible to to simplify future maintenance. With this extensive
effort, we've now improved our coverage as follows:
-- 98% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
This specific change is automatically generated by a script from
detailed ownership information confirmed by team leads.
Bug: 174932174
Test: manual
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Merged-In: I9789c97c1de8e5d962b48c29c57d82fe83729eba
Change-Id: I9789c97c1de8e5d962b48c29c57d82fe83729eba
NetworkUtils is planned to move to a dedicated JAR for connectivity
classes, while NetworkUtilsInternal would stay in the
frameworks-minus-apex JAR, in the com.android.internal.net package.
Bug: 171540887
Test: m, boots, wifi working
atest FrameworksNetTests
Change-Id: I3d38d72ad23a4bf84af823c7baeb6fed25c0665f
