3 ms·
My understanding is that the support is less about the device OEM and more about the SoC supplier (ie Qualcomm). Once Qualcomm decides they're not supporting th
by rez9x 4y ago
My understanding is that the support is less about the device OEM and more about the SoC supplier (ie Qualcomm). Once Qualcomm decides they're not supporting the SoC anymore, there's not much the OEM can do in terms of security patching. This is the understanding I've picked up from similar discussions over the years, but I very well may be wrong.
- nebulousthree 4y agoSo let's place a bet on what support on the pixel 6 generation will look like. Google has their own SOC there, right? No more excuses. I believe they promised a longer support cycle than with previous generations, which is a good start
- zozbot234 4y agoMany SoC's these days are well supported by the mainline kernel (and Qualcomm actually has way better support than, e.g. MediaTek) so some security fixes are still possible even after the hardware is out of support. Flaws in the embedded firmware could of course be problematic.
- CameronNemo 4y agoThe non-cellular mediatek chips actually have decent mainline support (not just kernel, tf-a and coreboot as well). At least the ones they put in Chromebooks. The mediatek socs with modems in them seem to be a different story.
- Melatonic 4y agoThats what I have heard as well. You would think a giant company like Google or Samsung could go to Qualcomm and require much longer support but it does not seem like that is happening unfortunately
- throwaway2048 4y agoQualcomm effectively has a near-monopoly on the concept of a cellular radio, especially on the high end, so they really don't have to bend for anyone, even a little.
- _carbyau_ 4y agoAnd yet curiously no one has done an nVidia-like breach on them yet. Coming in the future?
- witheld 4y agoThat’s why you make it a legal requirement- if Qualcomm wants customers it has to comply.