Loading keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp +18 −15 Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -388,25 +388,28 @@ bool avb_verification_enabled() { } int get_vsr_api_level() { int api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); int vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vendor.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level != -1) { return vendor_api_level; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vndk.version", -1); // Android S and older devices do not define ro.vendor.api_level vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level == -1) { vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); } // We really should have a VSR API level by now. But on cuttlefish, and perhaps other weird // devices, we may not. So, we use the SDK first or current API level if needed. If this goes // wrong, it should go wrong in the direction of being too strict rather than too lenient, which // should provoke someone to examine why we don't have proper VSR API level properties. if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); int product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); if (product_api_level == -1) { product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); EXPECT_NE(product_api_level, -1) << "Could not find ro.build.version.sdk"; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); // VSR API level is the minimum of vendor_api_level and product_api_level. if (vendor_api_level == -1 || vendor_api_level > product_api_level) { return product_api_level; } EXPECT_NE(api_level, -1) << "Could not find a VSR level, or equivalent."; return api_level; return vendor_api_level; } bool is_gsi() { Loading security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp +18 −15 Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -1461,25 +1461,28 @@ void verify_subject(const X509* cert, // } int get_vsr_api_level() { int api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); int vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vendor.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level != -1) { return vendor_api_level; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vndk.version", -1); // Android S and older devices do not define ro.vendor.api_level vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level == -1) { vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); } // We really should have a VSR API level by now. But on cuttlefish, and perhaps other weird // devices, we may not. So, we use the SDK first or current API level if needed. If this goes // wrong, it should go wrong in the direction of being too strict rather than too lenient, which // should provoke someone to examine why we don't have proper VSR API level properties. if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); int product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); if (product_api_level == -1) { product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); EXPECT_NE(product_api_level, -1) << "Could not find ro.build.version.sdk"; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); // VSR API level is the minimum of vendor_api_level and product_api_level. if (vendor_api_level == -1 || vendor_api_level > product_api_level) { return product_api_level; } EXPECT_NE(api_level, -1) << "Could not find a VSR level, or equivalent."; return api_level; return vendor_api_level; } bool is_gsi_image() { Loading Loading
keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp +18 −15 Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -388,25 +388,28 @@ bool avb_verification_enabled() { } int get_vsr_api_level() { int api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); int vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vendor.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level != -1) { return vendor_api_level; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vndk.version", -1); // Android S and older devices do not define ro.vendor.api_level vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level == -1) { vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); } // We really should have a VSR API level by now. But on cuttlefish, and perhaps other weird // devices, we may not. So, we use the SDK first or current API level if needed. If this goes // wrong, it should go wrong in the direction of being too strict rather than too lenient, which // should provoke someone to examine why we don't have proper VSR API level properties. if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); int product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); if (product_api_level == -1) { product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); EXPECT_NE(product_api_level, -1) << "Could not find ro.build.version.sdk"; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); // VSR API level is the minimum of vendor_api_level and product_api_level. if (vendor_api_level == -1 || vendor_api_level > product_api_level) { return product_api_level; } EXPECT_NE(api_level, -1) << "Could not find a VSR level, or equivalent."; return api_level; return vendor_api_level; } bool is_gsi() { Loading
security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp +18 −15 Original line number Diff line number Diff line Loading @@ -1461,25 +1461,28 @@ void verify_subject(const X509* cert, // } int get_vsr_api_level() { int api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); int vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vendor.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level != -1) { return vendor_api_level; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vndk.version", -1); // Android S and older devices do not define ro.vendor.api_level vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.api_level", -1); if (vendor_api_level == -1) { vendor_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.board.first_api_level", -1); } // We really should have a VSR API level by now. But on cuttlefish, and perhaps other weird // devices, we may not. So, we use the SDK first or current API level if needed. If this goes // wrong, it should go wrong in the direction of being too strict rather than too lenient, which // should provoke someone to examine why we don't have proper VSR API level properties. if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); int product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.product.first_api_level", -1); if (product_api_level == -1) { product_api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); EXPECT_NE(product_api_level, -1) << "Could not find ro.build.version.sdk"; } if (api_level == -1) { api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1); // VSR API level is the minimum of vendor_api_level and product_api_level. if (vendor_api_level == -1 || vendor_api_level > product_api_level) { return product_api_level; } EXPECT_NE(api_level, -1) << "Could not find a VSR level, or equivalent."; return api_level; return vendor_api_level; } bool is_gsi_image() { Loading