We wanted actual protection level, not flags.
Bug: 118083154
Test: manual
Change-Id: Ib5b105add2b92401f2dc4a3ca676d3303b46d54f
diff --git a/services/core/java/com/android/server/pm/permission/DefaultPermissionGrantPolicy.java b/services/core/java/com/android/server/pm/permission/DefaultPermissionGrantPolicy.java
index e6a018a..45cb477 100644
--- a/services/core/java/com/android/server/pm/permission/DefaultPermissionGrantPolicy.java
+++ b/services/core/java/com/android/server/pm/permission/DefaultPermissionGrantPolicy.java
@@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@
} else {
permissions.clear();
}
+ permissions.add(permissionGrant.name);
grantRuntimePermissions(pkg, permissions, permissionGrant.fixed, userId);
}
}
@@ -1359,7 +1360,7 @@
private boolean isPermissionDangerous(String name) {
try {
final PermissionInfo pi = mContext.getPackageManager().getPermissionInfo(name, 0);
- return (pi.getProtectionFlags() & PermissionInfo.PROTECTION_DANGEROUS) != 0;
+ return (pi.getProtection() == PermissionInfo.PROTECTION_DANGEROUS);
} catch (NameNotFoundException e) {
// When unknown assume it's dangerous to be on the safe side
return true;