Implement KeyMint2 test for VSR13
Test: VtsAidlKeyMintTargetTest & VtsHalKeymasterV4_0TargetTest
Change-Id: Ie10b705bb06990a2a2c6223fcce28f5fde6bf3f3
diff --git a/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp b/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
index 70b89c3..33945fd 100644
--- a/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
+++ b/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
@@ -1460,6 +1460,28 @@
OPENSSL_free(cert_issuer);
}
+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);
+ }
+ if (api_level == -1) {
+ api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.vndk.version", -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);
+ }
+ if (api_level == -1) {
+ api_level = ::android::base::GetIntProperty("ro.build.version.sdk", -1);
+ }
+ EXPECT_NE(api_level, -1) << "Could not find a VSR level, or equivalent.";
+ return api_level;
+}
+
bool is_gsi_image() {
std::ifstream ifs("/system/system_ext/etc/init/init.gsi.rc");
return ifs.good();