Android 8.0（Android O） AccountManager 行为变更

叁歲伎倆 2022-05-26 06:46 418阅读 0赞

## 前言 ##

在公司的项目中，使用 AccountManager 统一管理//获取帐号列表/或对应帐号类型的某个帐号

AccountManager\#getAccounts()/getAccountsByType(String accountType) 获取不到 AccountManager 里面的信息。

第一时间的反应是去查询官方 Android O 的行为变更，果然，Android O 对 AccountManager 做出了相应的修改。

[官方文档地址][Link 1]

> Account access and discoverability
> 
> In Android 8.0 (API level 26), apps can no longer get access to user accounts unless the authenticator owns the accounts or the user grants that access. The GET\_ACCOUNTS permission is no longer sufficient. To be granted access to an account, apps should either use AccountManager.newChooseAccountIntent() or an authenticator-specific method. After getting access to accounts, an app can can call AccountManager.getAccounts() to access them.
> 
> Android 8.0 deprecates LOGIN\_ACCOUNTS\_CHANGED\_ACTION. Apps should instead use addOnAccountsUpdatedListener() to get updates about accounts during runtime.
> 
> For information about new APIs and methods added for account access and discoverability, see Account Access and Discoverability in the New APIs section of this document.

简单来说，如果你的应用

在 Android 8.0 中，如果你的 target sdk 大于 25，通过 AccountManager.getAccounts() 无法获取 Account 的相关信息，即使你的 App 拥有 GET\_ACCOUNTS permission 权限。

如果想适配 Android 8.0，你可以通过 newChooseAccountIntent 来申请权限，接着通过 AccountManager.getAccounts() 即可以正常获取权限。

--------------------

## Android O AccountManager 适配方案 ##

以下的解决方案来自 [  
android 8.0 —AccountManager之行为变更][android 8.0 _AccountManager]

*  Target API level below O and have deprecated GET\_ACCOUNTS permission.
 *  Have GET\_ACCOUNTS\_PRIVILEGED permission.
 *  Have the same signature as authenticator.
 *  Have READ\_CONTACTS permission and account type may be associated with contacts data - (verified by WRITE\_CONTACTS permission check for the authenticator).

第一种情况：

targetSdkVersion<26，判断逻辑和8.0之前的判断逻辑是一样的，会检查 Manifest.permission.GET\_ACCOUNTS 的权限（android6.0及以上是运行时权限，需动态申请）

第二种情况：

有权限 Manifest.permission.GET\_ACCOUNTS\_PRIVILEGED，只有priv/app目录下的app声明之后才会授予此权限 （不管targetSdkVersion<26，还是>=26，有此权限，都有getAccountsXXX的权限 ）

第三种情况：

和注册此帐号类型的authenticator app签名一致（同第二种情况，与targetSdkVersion无关，只要签名一致，即可在8.0的机器上有权限调用getAccountsXXX）

第四种情况：

caller app有权限Manifest.permission.READ\_CONTACTS，该accountType的authenticator app要有Manifest.permission.WRITE\_CONTACTS（这两个都是dangerous permission，需要动态申请）  
根据Requesting Permissions才发现，read contacts，write contacts和get account这三个权限是属于同一个权限组的

### 官方推荐适配方案 ###

如果上面四个条件你都不满足，AccountManager还提供里另外两个接口：

/** * 返回用户选择授予获取帐号的弹窗Intent */
    static public Intent newChooseAccountIntent(Account selectedAccount,
    ArrayList<Account> allowableAccounts, 
    String[] allowableAccountTypes, 
    String descriptionOverrideText, 
    String addAccountAuthTokenType, 
    String[] addAccountRequiredFeatures，
    Bundle addAccountOptions)
    /** * 将某个帐号对特定包名可见性（允许/拒绝） * 只有和account的authenticator app签名一致才能调用此接口 */
    public boolean setAccountVisibility(Account account, String packageName, @AccountVisibility int visibility)
    /** * 此外，android8.0还追加下面接口，与setAccountVisibility接口相同 * 在登录成功，向AccountManager数据库中添加帐号时添加对特定包名的可见性 * 名义上，只有authenticator app才可以调用此接口 */
    public boolean addAccountExplicitly(Account account, String password, Bundle extras, Map<String, Integer> visibility)

上述接口要么是用户来选择授权同意，要么是authenticator app给予授权，具体来说android 8.0更加加强了用户的隐私数据安全性

newChooseAccountIntent显示给用户的弹窗样式如下：

![SouthEast][]

## 从源码的角度分析这几种解决方案 ##

上面说了几种解决方案，为什么这几种方案会有效果呢？

下面让我们一起从源码的角度来解读。

@NonNull
    public Account[] getAccountsByType(String type) {
        return getAccountsByTypeAsUser(type, Process.myUserHandle());
    }
    
    /** @hide Same as {@link #getAccountsByType(String)} but for a specific user. */
    @NonNull
    public Account[] getAccountsByTypeAsUser(String type, UserHandle userHandle) {
        try {
            return mService.getAccountsAsUser(type, userHandle.getIdentifier(),
                    mContext.getOpPackageName());
        } catch (RemoteException e) {
            throw e.rethrowFromSystemServer();
        }
    }

getAccountsByType 方法里面调用 getAccountsByTypeAsUser 方法，而在 getAccountsByTypeAsUser 方法里面，有调用 mService 的 getAccountsAsUser 方法。

那这个 mService 是什么东东呢？

private final IAccountManager mService;

可以看到其实是一个 AIDl，里面有若干方法

interface IAccountManager {
    
        Account[] getAccounts(String accountType, String opPackageName);
        Account[] getAccountsForPackage(String packageName, int uid, String opPackageName);
        Account[] getAccountsByTypeForPackage(String type, String packageName, String opPackageName);
        Account[] getAccountsAsUser(String accountType, int userId, String opPackageName);
        void hasFeatures(in IAccountManagerResponse response, in Account account, in String[] features,
            String opPackageName);
        void getAccountByTypeAndFeatures(in IAccountManagerResponse response, String accountType,
            in String[] features, String opPackageName);
        void getAccountsByFeatures(in IAccountManagerResponse response, String accountType,
            in String[] features, String opPackageName);
    
       // 省略了若干方法
    
    }

而这个 AIDL 最终会调用到 AccountManagerService 的相应方法

public class AccountManagerService extends IAccountManager.Stub implements RegisteredServicesCacheListener<AuthenticatorDescription>

接下来，我们一起来看一下 AccountManagerService 的 getAccountsAsUser 方法。 getAccountsAsUser 方法里面很简单，只是调用了 getAccountsAsUserForPackage 方法去获取结果。

@Override
    @NonNull
    public Account[] getAccountsAsUser(String type, int userId, String opPackageName) {
        int callingUid = Binder.getCallingUid();
        mAppOpsManager.checkPackage(callingUid, opPackageName);
        return getAccountsAsUserForPackage(type, userId, opPackageName /* callingPackage */, -1,
                opPackageName, false /* includeUserManagedNotVisible */);
    }
    
    @NonNull
    private Account[] getAccountsAsUserForPackage(
            String type,
            int userId,
            String callingPackage,
            int packageUid,
            String opPackageName,
            boolean includeUserManagedNotVisible) {
    
    
      ---- // 省略若干方法
    
        long identityToken = clearCallingIdentity();
        try {
            UserAccounts accounts = getUserAccounts(userId);
            return getAccountsInternal(
                    accounts,
                    callingUid,
                    opPackageName,
                    visibleAccountTypes,
                    includeUserManagedNotVisible);
        } finally {
            restoreCallingIdentity(identityToken);
        }
    }

在 getAccountsAsUserForPackage 方法里面，经过一系列的判断，最终又会调用到 getAccountsInternal 方法。

@NonNull
    private Account[] getAccountsInternal(
            UserAccounts userAccounts,
            int callingUid,
            String callingPackage,
            List<String> visibleAccountTypes,
            boolean includeUserManagedNotVisible) {
        ArrayList<Account> visibleAccounts = new ArrayList<>();
        for (String visibleType : visibleAccountTypes) {
            Account[] accountsForType = getAccountsFromCache(
                    userAccounts, visibleType, callingUid, callingPackage,
                    includeUserManagedNotVisible);
            if (accountsForType != null) {
                visibleAccounts.addAll(Arrays.asList(accountsForType));
            }
        }
        Account[] result = new Account[visibleAccounts.size()];
        for (int i = 0; i < visibleAccounts.size(); i++) {
            result[i] = visibleAccounts.get(i);
        }
        return result;
    }

在 getAccountsInternal 方法里面，又会调用 getAccountsFromCache 去获取结果

protected Account[] getAccountsFromCache(UserAccounts userAccounts, String accountType,
            int callingUid, @Nullable String callingPackage, boolean includeManagedNotVisible) {
        Preconditions.checkState(!Thread.holdsLock(userAccounts.cacheLock),
                "Method should not be called with cacheLock");
        if (accountType != null) {
            Account[] accounts;
            synchronized (userAccounts.cacheLock) {
                accounts = userAccounts.accountCache.get(accountType);
            }
            if (accounts == null) {
                return EMPTY_ACCOUNT_ARRAY;
            } else {
                return filterAccounts(userAccounts, Arrays.copyOf(accounts, accounts.length),
                        callingUid, callingPackage, includeManagedNotVisible);
            }
        } else {
            int totalLength = 0;
            Account[] accountsArray;
            synchronized (userAccounts.cacheLock) {
                for (Account[] accounts : userAccounts.accountCache.values()) {
                    totalLength += accounts.length;
                }
                if (totalLength == 0) {
                    return EMPTY_ACCOUNT_ARRAY;
                }
                accountsArray = new Account[totalLength];
                totalLength = 0;
                for (Account[] accountsOfType : userAccounts.accountCache.values()) {
                    System.arraycopy(accountsOfType, 0, accountsArray, totalLength,
                            accountsOfType.length);
                    totalLength += accountsOfType.length;
                }
            }
            return filterAccounts(userAccounts, accountsArray, callingUid, callingPackage,
                    includeManagedNotVisible);
        }
    }

而在 getAccountsFromCache 里面，不管 accountType 是否为空，最终都会调用到 filterAccounts 方法。

@NonNull
    private Account[] filterAccounts(UserAccounts accounts, Account[] unfiltered, int callingUid,
            @Nullable String callingPackage, boolean includeManagedNotVisible) {
        String visibilityFilterPackage = callingPackage;
        if (visibilityFilterPackage == null) {
            visibilityFilterPackage = getPackageNameForUid(callingUid);
        }
        Map<Account, Integer> firstPass = new LinkedHashMap<>();
        for (Account account : unfiltered) {
            int visibility = resolveAccountVisibility(account, visibilityFilterPackage, accounts);
            if ((visibility == AccountManager.VISIBILITY_VISIBLE
                    || visibility == AccountManager.VISIBILITY_USER_MANAGED_VISIBLE)
                    || (includeManagedNotVisible
                            && (visibility
                                    == AccountManager.VISIBILITY_USER_MANAGED_NOT_VISIBLE))) {
                firstPass.put(account, visibility);
            }
        }
        Map<Account, Integer> secondPass =
                filterSharedAccounts(accounts, firstPass, callingUid, callingPackage);
    
        Account[] filtered = new Account[secondPass.size()];
        filtered = secondPass.keySet().toArray(filtered);
        return filtered;
    }

在 filterAccounts 里面，又会调用 resolveAccountVisibility 去判断我们的 CallerApp 是否可以访问我们的 Account。

private Integer resolveAccountVisibility(Account account, @NonNull String packageName,
            UserAccounts accounts) {
        Preconditions.checkNotNull(packageName, "packageName cannot be null");
        int uid = -1;
        try {
            long identityToken = clearCallingIdentity();
            try {
                uid = mPackageManager.getPackageUidAsUser(packageName, accounts.userId);
            } finally {
                restoreCallingIdentity(identityToken);
            }
        } catch (NameNotFoundException e) {
            Log.d(TAG, "Package not found " + e.getMessage());
            return AccountManager.VISIBILITY_NOT_VISIBLE;
        }
    
        // System visibility can not be restricted.
        if (UserHandle.isSameApp(uid, Process.SYSTEM_UID)) {
            return AccountManager.VISIBILITY_VISIBLE;
        }
    
        int signatureCheckResult =
                checkPackageSignature(account.type, uid, accounts.userId);
    
        // Authenticator can not restrict visibility to itself.
        if (signatureCheckResult == SIGNATURE_CHECK_UID_MATCH) {
            return AccountManager.VISIBILITY_VISIBLE; // Authenticator can always see the account
        }
    
        // Return stored value if it was set.
        int visibility = getAccountVisibilityFromCache(account, packageName, accounts);
    
        if (AccountManager.VISIBILITY_UNDEFINED != visibility) {
            return visibility;
        }
    
        boolean isPrivileged = isPermittedForPackage(packageName, uid, accounts.userId,
                Manifest.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS_PRIVILEGED);
    
        // Device/Profile owner gets visibility by default.
        if (isProfileOwner(uid)) {
            return AccountManager.VISIBILITY_VISIBLE;
        }
    
         // target sdk < 26
        boolean preO = isPreOApplication(packageName);
        // 签名是否一致
        // target sdk < 26 小于 26 ，并且拥有 Manifest.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS 权限 
        // CallerApp 拥有 Manifest.permission.READ_CONTACTS ，authenticator APP 拥有 Manifest.permission.WRITE_CONTACTS
        // 是否拥有 Manifest.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS_PRIVILEGED 权限
        if ((signatureCheckResult != SIGNATURE_CHECK_MISMATCH)
                || (preO && checkGetAccountsPermission(packageName, uid, accounts.userId))
                || (checkReadContactsPermission(packageName, uid, accounts.userId)
                    && accountTypeManagesContacts(account.type, accounts.userId))
                || isPrivileged) {
            // Use legacy for preO apps with GET_ACCOUNTS permission or pre/postO with signature
            // match.
            visibility = getAccountVisibilityFromCache(account,
                    AccountManager.PACKAGE_NAME_KEY_LEGACY_VISIBLE, accounts);
            if (AccountManager.VISIBILITY_UNDEFINED == visibility) {
                visibility = AccountManager.VISIBILITY_USER_MANAGED_VISIBLE;
            }
        } else {
            visibility = getAccountVisibilityFromCache(account,
                    AccountManager.PACKAGE_NAME_KEY_LEGACY_NOT_VISIBLE, accounts);
            if (AccountManager.VISIBILITY_UNDEFINED == visibility) {
                visibility = AccountManager.VISIBILITY_USER_MANAGED_NOT_VISIBLE;
            }
        }
        return visibility;
    }

我们主要看这一段就好，从这一段我们可以看到满足下列其中一个条件，即可获取得到相关的 Account 信息。

*  签名一致
 *  target sdk < 26 小于 26 ，并且拥有 Manifest.permission.GET\_ACCOUNTS 权限
 *  CallerApp 拥有 Manifest.permission.READ\_CONTACTS ，authenticator APP 拥有 Manifest.permission.WRITE\_CONTACTS
 *  拥有 Manifest.permission.GET\_ACCOUNTS\_PRIVILEGED 权限

// target  sdk < 26
        boolean preO = isPreOApplication(packageName);
        // 签名是否一致
        // target  sdk < 26  小于 26 ，并且拥有 Manifest.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS 权限 
        // CallerApp 拥有  Manifest.permission.READ_CONTACTS ，authenticator APP 拥有 Manifest.permission.WRITE_CONTACTS
        // 是否拥有 Manifest.permission.GET_ACCOUNTS_PRIVILEGED 权限
        if ((signatureCheckResult != SIGNATURE_CHECK_MISMATCH)
                || (preO && checkGetAccountsPermission(packageName, uid, accounts.userId))
                || (checkReadContactsPermission(packageName, uid, accounts.userId)
                    && accountTypeManagesContacts(account.type, accounts.userId))
                || isPrivileged) {
            // Use legacy for preO apps with GET_ACCOUNTS permission or pre/postO with signature
            // match.
            visibility = getAccountVisibilityFromCache(account,
                    AccountManager.PACKAGE_NAME_KEY_LEGACY_VISIBLE, accounts);
            if (AccountManager.VISIBILITY_UNDEFINED == visibility) {
                visibility = AccountManager.VISIBILITY_USER_MANAGED_VISIBLE;
            }
        }

--------------------

## 题外话 ##

写这篇博客的主要目的其实不是为了讨论解决方案，而是为了记录一下跟踪 Framework 代码的一些历程吧。很多时候，我们知道了解决方案之后，往往没有往更深一层去了解，为什么这种解决方案是有效的。

或许刚开始跟踪源码的过程，是有点痛苦，也很想放弃，但如果当你坚持下来，找到解决方案的时候，你会莫名地发现有一种成就感。

参考博客： [  
android 8.0 —AccountManager之行为变更][android 8.0 _AccountManager]

[转载请注明原博客地址][Link 2]

[Link 1]: https://developer.android.com/about/versions/oreo/android-8.0-changes.html
[android 8.0 _AccountManager]: https://blog.csdn.net/dzkdxyx/article/details/78821384
[SouthEast]: /images/20220526/7ed60f3157974828836bd97e0ecb7621.png
[Link 2]: https://blog.csdn.net/gdutxiaoxu/article/details/80099717