!UUYziobKGGxpovWyAN:nixos.org

Robotnix

234 Members
Build Android (AOSP) using Nix | https://github.com/nix-community/robotnix71 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
29 Oct 2024
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgoh, yeah, launching random activities might not work when they require params01:00:31
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuIt's also not like the settings are at fault, this is almost certainly just the settings reacting to biometrics not working at a lower layer01:00:46
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgyes, was about to say; it wasn't meant to imply that the settings page are to be looked at, but an example that it will filter "deeper" than package names01:01:23
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemu
In reply to @oak:universumi.fi
I hope the issue is not inside the closed source binaries
Given that it also affects stock ROM...
01:01:32
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgit sure smells fishy01:01:54
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️It might be that the problematic code runs inside TEE01:02:03
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuOhoh01:02:13
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuThat could also be a state that I'd wipe by wiping userdata, huh01:02:32
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuBecause android would presumably re-init TEE state when it's got a clean slate01:02:54
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️Yeah it probably resets the Keystore / Keymaster at least01:04:12
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️Fairphone has Qualcomm chip so they are probably running QSEE01:04:32
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgthat fairphone? (I forget which model is the latest)01:05:01
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.org(I thought it was fairphone 5? and here remember FP4, but might be wrong?)01:05:21
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuAll of them run QC chips AFAIK01:05:30
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️* Fairphone 4 has Qualcomm chip so they are probably running QSEE01:05:22
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemu * All of them have QC chips AFAIK01:05:39
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgdefinitely not, initial ones were mediatek based01:05:51
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuOh indeed01:06:15
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.org * definitely not, initial ones were mediatek based 01:06:20
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuThe first one is MediaTek01:06:40
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgright, the last four were qualcomm01:06:47
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️I think Qualcomm announced recently they will lock the secure side of their SoCs so it's only going to be running TEE OS signed by Qualcomm keys in the future. Even for companies that make phones with those chips01:07:41
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️So phone makers won't be able to implement their own TEE OS on Qualcomm hardware01:08:16
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuIs anyone actually doing that?01:08:29
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuI'd assume everyone takes the vendor's software to get the device to work01:09:06
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️Well there are alternatives for what you can run as TEE OS using TrustZone01:09:08
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️Vendor's software is usually a pain01:09:50
@atemu12:matrix.orgAtemuI believe that01:10:03
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️But yeah at least in the past Qualcomm was very bad at mainlining their stuff to kernel01:10:16
@oak:universumi.fioak 🏳️‍🌈♥️They basically just forked the kernel at some point and hacked it to work with their SoC01:10:53

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6