6 ms·

Google blocked patch to disable extraction to APK

93 points by NicoJuicy 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago
I'm glad Google didn't let this through. I wish they'd go a step further, though, and make it a CDD requirement that this change isn't there, since otherwise, all Xiaomi phones will end up with it anyway.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Can they? When one Googler commented: > If Xiaomi needs this, I think it should be done in the device-specific sepolicies. Another responded that: > Xiaomi cannot remove policy in device specific policy.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    That means they wouldn't be able to use this exact method to block APK extraction. I'm worried they'll find another, though, so I want the CDD to be updated to say APK extraction must be allowed. (I suppose I could have worded my original comment better.)
  - TheDong 4y ago
    Xiaomi still can, just not with that mechanism (device-specific policies). I'm pretty sure they already ship a customized android distribution, so they could apply this exact patch, the one they proposed upstream, to their fork of android. I give it quite good odds they already have applied such a patch.
    - tadfisher 4y ago
      And it will continue to be useless for what Xiaomi claims is the patch's purpose, because the same "private" APK data can be pulled unmodified from the same device with a userdebug build, or from the numerous devices available which do not have this patch applied.
xt00 4y ago
Yea the mentality with phones is super annoying from both Android and Apple.. The user should have access to everything via some special interface / typing in your pin / password or whatever. The idea that the owner of the phone can be prohibited from seeing what is actually running on their device is horrible. Hope one day the norm is that users can get root on the device they own rather than it being explained that “oh that’s too powerful for users to have.. we as the company who made the device have root but you cannot..”
- josephcsible 4y ago
  To be clear, Google did the right thing here. Xiaomi proposed an evil user-hostile patch, which Google refused to merge.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > evil user-hostile patch I do not doubt you, but that is not a fact-based statement. Can we do better?
    - saagarjha 4y ago
      What would “better” be in this context? The decision to merge a patch is functions correctly is necessarily opinionated.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      The patch inhibits the owner of the phone from accessing data stored on the phone.
    - tomc1985 4y ago
      Funny, I thought this was Hacker News, not Reuters. What are facts, in this day and age, anyway? I guess 'objective reality' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Which means in the end Xiaomi phones will have feature anyway. The Android ecosystem is full of fragmentation, the same one that Google fanboys argue that Android was designed to fix in regards to J2ME. Another two common example among Android devleper complaints, is OEM support for cameras, and background services being killed in name of battery resources. Whatever Google decides is of little value for an ecosystem where the majority of consumers aren't getting Pixel phones.
ajross 4y ago
Double negative in the HN headline seems needlessly confusing. It was a Xiaomi-authored patch to disable APK copies (via an SELinux policy as the mechanism), and Google NAKed it.
- no_time 4y ago
  Each to their own. I can parse a double negative but don't know what "NAKed" is.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    NAK means "negative acknowledge".
edumucelli 4y ago
I liked the last comment in this PR: "I think Xiaomi should share the open source code as requested by the users before finding more ways to obfuscate things. https://github.com/MiCode/Xiaomi_Kernel_OpenSource/issues/2377 https://github.com/MiCode/Xiaomi_Kernel_OpenSource/issues/23... There are dozens of pages filled with such request in the issue tracker."
- josephcsible 4y ago
  I wish the US government would block import of Xiaomi phones for infringing on Linux kernel contributors' copyright, just like they seem to already do in basically every other case of IP infringement except this one.

93 points by NicoJuicy 4y ago

I'm glad Google didn't let this through. I wish they'd go a step further, though, and make it a CDD requirement that this change isn't there, since otherwise, all Xiaomi phones will end up with it anyway.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Can they? When one Googler commented: > If Xiaomi needs this, I think it should be done in the device-specific sepolicies. Another responded that: > Xiaomi cannot remove policy in device specific policy.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  That means they wouldn't be able to use this exact method to block APK extraction. I'm worried they'll find another, though, so I want the CDD to be updated to say APK extraction must be allowed. (I suppose I could have worded my original comment better.)
- TheDong 4y ago
  Xiaomi still can, just not with that mechanism (device-specific policies). I'm pretty sure they already ship a customized android distribution, so they could apply this exact patch, the one they proposed upstream, to their fork of android. I give it quite good odds they already have applied such a patch.
  - tadfisher 4y ago
    And it will continue to be useless for what Xiaomi claims is the patch's purpose, because the same "private" APK data can be pulled unmodified from the same device with a userdebug build, or from the numerous devices available which do not have this patch applied.

xt00 4y ago

Yea the mentality with phones is super annoying from both Android and Apple.. The user should have access to everything via some special interface / typing in your pin / password or whatever. The idea that the owner of the phone can be prohibited from seeing what is actually running on their device is horrible. Hope one day the norm is that users can get root on the device they own rather than it being explained that “oh that’s too powerful for users to have.. we as the company who made the device have root but you cannot..”

josephcsible 4y ago
To be clear, Google did the right thing here. Xiaomi proposed an evil user-hostile patch, which Google refused to merge.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > evil user-hostile patch I do not doubt you, but that is not a fact-based statement. Can we do better?
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    What would “better” be in this context? The decision to merge a patch is functions correctly is necessarily opinionated.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    The patch inhibits the owner of the phone from accessing data stored on the phone.
  - tomc1985 4y ago
    Funny, I thought this was Hacker News, not Reuters. What are facts, in this day and age, anyway? I guess 'objective reality' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Which means in the end Xiaomi phones will have feature anyway. The Android ecosystem is full of fragmentation, the same one that Google fanboys argue that Android was designed to fix in regards to J2ME. Another two common example among Android devleper complaints, is OEM support for cameras, and background services being killed in name of battery resources. Whatever Google decides is of little value for an ecosystem where the majority of consumers aren't getting Pixel phones.

ajross 4y ago

Double negative in the HN headline seems needlessly confusing. It was a Xiaomi-authored patch to disable APK copies (via an SELinux policy as the mechanism), and Google NAKed it.

no_time 4y ago
Each to their own. I can parse a double negative but don't know what "NAKed" is.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  NAK means "negative acknowledge".

edumucelli 4y ago

I liked the last comment in this PR: "I think Xiaomi should share the open source code as requested by the users before finding more ways to obfuscate things. https://github.com/MiCode/Xiaomi_Kernel_OpenSource/issues/2377 https://github.com/MiCode/Xiaomi_Kernel_OpenSource/issues/23... There are dozens of pages filled with such request in the issue tracker."

josephcsible 4y ago
I wish the US government would block import of Xiaomi phones for infringing on Linux kernel contributors' copyright, just like they seem to already do in basically every other case of IP infringement except this one.