Merge "KeyMint VTS: cope with ATTEST_KEY +/- SIGN" into tm-dev
diff --git a/keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp b/keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp
index bdaaf96..fb5048a 100644
--- a/keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp
+++ b/keymaster/4.0/vts/functional/keymaster_hidl_hal_test.cpp
@@ -388,25 +388,28 @@
}
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() {
diff --git a/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp b/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
index 33945fd..46db4f0 100644
--- a/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
+++ b/security/keymint/aidl/vts/functional/KeyMintAidlTestBase.cpp
@@ -1461,25 +1461,28 @@
}
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() {
diff --git a/sensors/aidl/default/multihal/ConvertUtils.cpp b/sensors/aidl/default/multihal/ConvertUtils.cpp
index 9b2d8fe..bf56ed5 100644
--- a/sensors/aidl/default/multihal/ConvertUtils.cpp
+++ b/sensors/aidl/default/multihal/ConvertUtils.cpp
@@ -77,6 +77,8 @@
hidlEvent->u.vec3.x = aidlEvent.payload.get<Event::EventPayload::vec3>().x;
hidlEvent->u.vec3.y = aidlEvent.payload.get<Event::EventPayload::vec3>().y;
hidlEvent->u.vec3.z = aidlEvent.payload.get<Event::EventPayload::vec3>().z;
+ hidlEvent->u.vec3.status =
+ (V1_0SensorStatus)aidlEvent.payload.get<Event::EventPayload::vec3>().status;
break;
case AidlSensorType::GAME_ROTATION_VECTOR:
hidlEvent->u.vec4.x = aidlEvent.payload.get<Event::EventPayload::vec4>().x;
@@ -225,6 +227,7 @@
vec3.x = hidlEvent.u.vec3.x;
vec3.y = hidlEvent.u.vec3.y;
vec3.z = hidlEvent.u.vec3.z;
+ vec3.status = (SensorStatus)hidlEvent.u.vec3.status;
aidlEvent->payload.set<Event::EventPayload::vec3>(vec3);
break;
}
diff --git a/uwb/aidl/vts/VtsHalUwbTargetTest.cpp b/uwb/aidl/vts/VtsHalUwbTargetTest.cpp
index edd8dd6..81d26ba 100644
--- a/uwb/aidl/vts/VtsHalUwbTargetTest.cpp
+++ b/uwb/aidl/vts/VtsHalUwbTargetTest.cpp
@@ -68,6 +68,11 @@
iuwb_ = IUwb::fromBinder(SpAIBinder(AServiceManager_waitForService(GetParam().c_str())));
ASSERT_NE(iuwb_, nullptr);
}
+ virtual void TearDown() override {
+ // Trigger HAL close at end of each test.
+ const auto iuwb_chip = getAnyChip();
+ iuwb_chip->close();
+ }
std::shared_ptr<IUwb> iuwb_;
// TODO (b/197638976): We pick the first chip here. Need to fix this