Magisk General Support / Discussion

Search This thread

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
[ ... etc. ... ] I am sure google are doing the changes as they think/know its in my best interest [ ... etc. ... ]
I'm pretty sure that Google's choices are not driven by any considerations, whatsoever, concerning the ease of rooting devices and upgrading the OS's on these rooted devices, espcically with regard to getting these rooted devices to pass SafetyNet.

In any case, I understand and accept that it's my choice as to whether I install upgrades or stay with older and perhaps easier-to-utilize rooting and OS upgrading procedures.

I guess I'm soon going to have to bite the bullet and learn a more complex procedure for upgrading my OS, without that OTA feature.

My device is a OnePlus 7 Pro (GM-1917), currently running OOS 10.3.8, and I am using TWRP 3.5.0_9-0. Could anyone point me to instructions about how to upgrade my exact device to the next OOS 10.x.x version under the latest Magisk, but without that OTA feature?

And if I ever decide to go to Android 11 and use Magisk, are the instructions for doing so on my specific device outlined anywhere?

Thank you very much in advance.
 

zgfg

Senior Member
Oct 10, 2016
7,570
4,976
I'm pretty sure that Google's choices are not driven by any considerations, whatsoever, concerning the ease of rooting devices and upgrading the OS's on these rooted devices, espcically with regard to getting these rooted devices to pass SafetyNet.

In any case, I understand and accept that it's my choice as to whether I install upgrades or stay with older and perhaps easier-to-utilize rooting and OS upgrading procedures.

I guess I'm soon going to have to bite the bullet and learn a more complex procedure for upgrading my OS, without that OTA feature.

My device is a OnePlus 7 Pro (GM-1917), currently running OOS 10.3.8, and I am using TWRP 3.5.0_9-0. Could anyone point me to instructions about how to upgrade my device to the next OOS 10.x.x version under the latest Magisk, but without that OTA feature?

And if I ever decide to go to Android 11 and use Magisk, are the instructions for doing so on my exact, specific device outlined anywhere?

Thank you very much in advance.
Look at your device forum, and forums for other models from the same vendor
 

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
Look at your device forum, and forums for other models from the same vendor
My device doesn't have such a forum, and I am indeed searching for this info, which I have not yet found for my own device. I'm specifically talking about a procedure that utilizes post-21.4 versions of Magisk. I was just hoping that someone here might have gone though this for the device I mentioned and could point me to the steps that they took.

The fact that such info is not easy to find (at least not for my device) is yet another reason for my avoiding any Magisk upgrade beyond 21.4.
 

asanford

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2013
54
21
OnePlus 7 Pro
My device doesn't have such a forum, and I am indeed searching for this info, which I have not yet found for my own device. I'm specifically talking about a procedure that utilizes post-21.4 versions of Magisk. I was just hoping that someone here might have gone though this for the device I mentioned and could point me to the steps that they took.

The fact that such info is not easy to find (at least not for my device) is yet another reason for my avoiding any Magisk upgrade beyond 21.4.

OP7Pro doesn't have a forum...

 
  • Like
Reactions: J.Michael

harddisk_wp

Senior Member
Mar 17, 2009
144
36
munich
Goodoh.

I don't have a Samsung device, but noted this requirement for those who do, and I guess it's peculiar to Samsung. At least my (Xiaomi) device w/ unlocked bootloader doesn't grey-out OEM unlocking toggle.

Not sure attestation fails due to Knox trip (guess you mean evalType = Hardware / ctsProfile fails?) - After all you should be able to relock bootloader to pass ctsProfile even w/ Knox fuse blown, and ctsProfile trip due to Hardware key attestation w/ unlocked bootloader is common to most recent devices now, even if evalType shows Basic. Solution is to use Universal SafetyNet Fix Magisk module and Magisk root. (Working presently incl. customised fix for Samsung which, of course, also have tripped Knox, but won't work after Google swings the Big Hammer finally.)

You won't be able (on recent Samsung devices) to reset Knox so will have lost ability to set up/use secure Knox partition and possibly other 'Enterprise' mode features forever.

Please correct me if there is any evidence attestation is affected by Knox status. Would be helpful to know of any new connection. PW

I've tried the latest Canary, still does not work. What I've done and discovered so far:
  • The proper way to enter ODIN mode on a SM-T575 is not "adb reboot download" - this ODIN invocation won't print much debug information. Power the tablet off, then hold VolUp+VolDn, then plug in the USB cable.
  • The way to Recovery is hold the red Bixby button and VolUp, then press power to boot (and with unlocked bootloader, you may need to press Power again - but keep holding Red/VolUp!
  • The way to Safe Mode: press and hold VolDn.
  • KG State is "Prenormal" (probably "Knox Guard"), FRP LOCK is OFF, OEM LOCK is OFF (U), Secure Download is Enabled (whatever that means)
  • Replacing the vbmeta.img and vbmeta_samsung.img with an empty one (created with avbtool info_image --image empty.img) doesn't help, still the same error about "only official released binaries allowed to be flashed
  • A really nasty problem: removing super.img and userdata.img to reduce the file copy and flash times from the stock AP image and to prevent ODIN from wiping out all user data (and thus, also from the Magisk patched image) leads to a corrupt system. Here's what I did: a flash of the full stock AP image, followed by booting into Android, doing the first-time initialization, rebooting to ODIN mode, and then flashing stock AP image sans userdata.img / super.img yields a prompt_and_wipe_data reason=set_policy_failed:/data/misc error in last_history. So, then I wiped the data in recovery, completed the install assistant - suddenly, it crashes and goes to recovery again, this time with a postrecovery_failed / rason=dataresizing_failed / RecoverySystemdataresizing_failed in /cache/recovery/last_history.
  • Removing only userdata.img seems to work, but of course it takes *ages* to copy files between my Windows machine where Odin runs and my Mac
I'm at a complete loss on what to do now. Has someone maybe already documented why Samsung uses two separate vbmeta images and what's the difference? Or how one can enroll one's own signing keys into the bootloader?

Is there anything I can do to help?
 

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
OP7Pro doesn't have a forum...

I also said this: "I'm specifically talking about a procedure that utilizes post-21.4 versions of Magisk." I have yet to find such info in the forums mentioned.
 

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
I've been on magisk canary since upgrading to A11 and haven't changed any procedure from A10 other than TWRP not supporting A11 yet.
But you aren't using the OTA A/B feature, correct? ... given that this feature is no longer supported in Magisk.

So, I guess I should just do the "long form" upgrade methodology (i.e., without that OTA A/B utility), correct?

PS: and I *do* want to use TWRP, which I guess is still possible as long as I stay on A10.
 

asanford

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2013
54
21
OnePlus 7 Pro
But you aren't using the OTA A/B feature, correct? ... given that this feature is no longer supported in Magisk.

I did when I installed OB2. Haven't had to try it since today's canary update. But the option to flash to inactive slot is still there for me. Is virtual A/B different from the A/B that's been around for years? Don't have a new update to flash otherwise I'd experiment
 
  • Like
Reactions: HippoMan

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
I did when I installed OB2. Haven't had to try it since today's canary update. But the option to flash to inactive slot is still there for me. Is virtual A/B different from the A/B that's been around for years? Don't have a new update to flash otherwise I'd experiment
I'm not sure about the answers to these questions.

In the past, I was always willing to play around and experiment with my device. But these days, I need my phone for work, and I don't have the luxury of being able to try things and then possibly have to take the time to unbrick and restore my device.

I'll get around to that eventually, but unless/until I can find definitive information about this, I think I'll just stick with 21.4 and use the OTA A/B utility.
 

MECH_TECH

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2014
63
9
I have a S9 SM-G960F/FD on android 9 rooted and Magisk 20.4 installed and Manager 8.0.7 (4834) its asking to update to 21.4 (21400) Is it safe to let it update using the Manager?
 

ipdev

Recognized Contributor
Feb 14, 2016
1,840
1
3,219
Google Nexus 10
Nexus 7 (2013)
Odd question.

Did I miss how adb is handled in Magisk?

The current canary (8476eb9f : 21409), I have adb root?

---

I did a clean install on a device testing something else.

I had to acknowledge and allow the computer to connect via adb just like it should.
When I started adb shell, I was root. No prompt from Magisk to grant root?
adb does not show under Superuser settings in Magisk.

adb shell is deftly root since it shows as root and I can navigate and list all restricted directories without issue.

Bash:
[[email protected] 20210213]$ adb shell whoami
root
[[email protected] 20210213]$

Clean flash was on Nexus 7 (2013) flo[WiFi] and deb[LTE] using TWRP.

- Complete wipe and format in fastboot
- Complete format and wipe in TWRP (reboot to recovery in there also)
- Flash Lineage 18.1
- Flash OpenGApps
- Flash renamed Magisk canary
- Reboot to system


Cheers. :cowboy:

Edit:

Same with new current canary (b76c80e2 : 21410).

If this is intended behavior I am fine with it.
If it is not intended, then there is a problem and I will open a GitHub issue.


Bash:
[[email protected] 20210214]$ adb shell whoami
root
[[email protected] 20210214]$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: J.Michael

pndwal

Senior Member
Latest Canary Changelog incl. Release Notes:

Magisk (b76c80e2) (21410)
  • [App] Fix crashes after hiding the Magisk app
  • [MagiskSU] Fix incorrect APEX paths that caused libsqlite.so fail to load
How to Use the APK for Recoveries
In general, it is recommended to install and uninstall Magisk through the Magisk app. However, if you insist to use custom recoveries, rename the Magisk APK's .apk file extension to .zip. TWRP should then be able to directly flash the zip file. If you have trouble renaming the file extension on PC, rename the file with TWRP's built-in file manager. To uninstall in recovery, rename the zip file to uninstall.zip before flashing it.

Diff from v21.4
  • [General] Magisk and Magisk Manager is now merged!
  • [App] Rename the app "Magisk Manager" to "Magisk"
  • [App] Support hiding the Magisk app with advanced technique (stub APK loading) on Android 5.0+ (it used to be 9.0+)
  • [App] Disallow re-packaging the Magisk app on devices lower than Android 5.0
  • [MagiskHide] Fix a bug when stopping MagiskHide does not take effect
  • [MagiskBoot] Fix bug when unpacking lz4_lg compressed boot images
  • [MagiskInit] Support Galaxy S21 series
  • [MagiskSU] Fix incorrect APEX paths that caused libsqlite.so fail to load
👍 PW
 

DiamondJohn

Recognized Contributor
Aug 31, 2013
6,289
6,224
Sydney
I'm pretty sure that Google's choices are not driven by any considerations, whatsoever, concerning the ease of rooting devices and upgrading the OS's on these rooted devices, espcically with regard to getting these rooted devices to pass SafetyNet.
My statement stands, as Google would see rooting as NOT being in my best interest. And in Googles eyes, somehow faking / working around safetynet or having a weakness to allow workaround it, would definitely be considered contradictory to my best interest. Remember, they are producing for the mass public, not for the small percentage of knowledgeable people.
 

pndwal

Senior Member
A little insight into the 'crashes after hiding the Magisk app' fix:
John Wu, 33m

Pushed a new canary build that fixed crashes when the Magisk app is hidden. I assumed that class references in layout XMLs will be expanded by AAPT to the full path just like AndroidManifest.xml. Apparently I'm wrong...
Re. 'Support Galaxy S21 series' fix:
John Wu, 19h

Update: Exynos variant confirmed working with the additional patch
👍 PW
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dobi3 and AndDiSa

HippoMan

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
1,899
724
Hippoland
My statement stands, as Google would see rooting as NOT being in my best interest. And in Googles eyes, somehow faking / working around safetynet or having a weakness to allow workaround it, would definitely be considered contradictory to my best interest. Remember, they are producing for the mass public, not for the small percentage of knowledgeable people.
I don't disagree with your statement that this is what Google sees as being in the best interest of the mass public, even though it isn't in the best interest of people like me who want to root. I'm not accusing Google of having bad intentions; it's just that they are not working to promote functionality that happens to be desired by me and by others who want rooted devices.

And therefore, as time goes on, my life gets more complicated as I try to live in the Google world with a rooted device. And my desire to avoid this complication as much as possible is why I am holding back on upgrading to A11 and to the post-21.4 Magisk.
 
Last edited:

Top Liked Posts

  • 3
    @13Sullo80 If you want to flash a single image file in Odin, I think you should make a tar archive containing that one image file. Renaming is not the way.

    The AP, BL, CP, and CSC tar files are the way we've seen Samsung ROMs packaged. You won't find them on the phone.

    How did you get this custom ROM? What assortment of files? How did you install it?

    Installing a Magisk-patched system should follow the same pattern as the installation of the unpatched system.

    Find the forum that deals with the ROM. And the forum that deals with the phone. If you are lucky, there is some overlap.
    2
    Ahh!

    So ..9-1 fixed adb?... (It isn't self-evident). PW
    OT for this thread but..
    The update to TWRP 3.6.2 broke adb sideload and partitions formatted with fastboot were not recognized by TWRP, when using newer/current versions of Platform Tools.
    The fix (9-1) for adb sideload (using newer builds of Platform Tools) was a revert of a previous commit.
    Can you please test if MTP works ?

    Remember some issues .. and the reason for changing the USB product / vendor ID in recovery at this time.
    The revert fixed adb sideload but broke MTP. 😥
    So currently, we have to use older adb/fastboot builds to be compatible with TWRP 3.6.2.
    Note:
    Platform-Tools r27.0.1 (December 2017) seemed to be the safest to use at the moment.
    You can download an older release of platform-tools by adjusting the official download link to the release you want.

    Cheers. :cowboy:
    2
    @pndwal Have you ever seen an MTP transfer corrupt a file, or are you just repeating the advice I have seen elsewhere?

    I always used Windows Explorer to transfer files. I checked the md5sum at both ends, never saw a mismatch.
    Years ago, I had some corruption issue with MTP and a Kindle Fire 7(?) using MacOS.
    Since then I have just used adb to push and pull using Linux, Mac, and Windows.

    I might test the MTP connection for a device but, that is about it.
    twrp-3.6.2_9-0
    - MTP works.
    - OTG works.

    twrp-3.6.2_9-1
    - MTP is broken.
    - OTG works.

    So it looks like the fix for adb sideload breaks MTP.

    Cheers. :cowboy:
    2
    @pndwal Have you ever seen an MTP transfer corrupt a file, or are you just repeating the advice I have seen elsewhere?

    I always used Windows Explorer to transfer files. I checked the md5sum at both ends, never saw a mismatch.
    Yes, I tried to help several (3?) members here who confirmed that various issues disappeared (sometimes corrupted image would flash, sometimes not) after using ADB pull... The first couple of times the members themselves found the fix; I hadn't thought of it...

    I only know it's common w/ Sammy's large binaries however; don't recall similar reports for other devices. 😉 PW
    2
    My next area of help is safetyNet failure with LineageOS 14.1 ROM

    1. Have Magisk setup and hidden
    2. Have downloaded UniversalSafetyNet fix and it shows under modules in Magisk
    3. YASNAC fails Basic Integrity and CTS checks.

    Have reviewed the posts but not able to fix. Is this ROM so old that I cannot get it to pass?
    Search in USNF thread for USNF mod from @Displax and install it... Is spoofs a very old fingerprint that should kill two birds; 1) need for fingerprint / security patch date matching in custom and other uncertified ROMs (always in official LOS due to their policy not to alter expected signals), and 2) new Play Integrity MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY failure.

    Traditional solution for CTS Profile match in official LOS etc was to configure a passing fingerprint/patch date combination using MHPC module, but this shouldn't be needed w/ @Displax modded USNF... PW
  • 6
    Its trivial to sniff or even MITM a desktop, or even just run WinPE and reset admin password and use the users own saved passwords in their browser, heck even export their passwords....

    In any event the biggest risk vector is social engineering

    Chasing root phone users only gives them a "feelgood", it does nothing to stop genuine misuse and fraud, at all.....

    I dont see Google or a bank sending out a representative every time someone makes a transaction to see if theyre genuine....trying to control the device is attacking the wrong end of the transaction and is ultimately pointless
    They're not chasing root users. They just want a guarantee that the device is secure, and they have good reason to. Rooting by nature compromises device security.

    I'm not saying your opinion is invalid; in this context however, it is irrelevant, because regardless of how you may feel about the situation, it's not going to change.
    5
    did all that, flashed uninstall.zip, uninstalled the Magisk app, flashed the original boot.img from LineageOS payload.bin...

    End result: root apps don't have root, "secure apps" (banking, etc.) complain about the phone being rooted.

    Example: CF.lumen stating "Could not aquire root access". But then the banking app is claiming the phone isn't secure and closes. Same for a State ID certification app I use.

    This is a disaster.

    With Magisk uninstalled and original boot you have no more Magisk

    But you don't pass SafetyNet (bcs your Bootloader is still unlocked and you still run custom ROM and you are no more hiding it by eg using Magisk module USNF), hence banking apps do complain about 'root' (they probably don't say "root" or use the meaning vaguely)

    If you want to get rid of Magisk and with that you want to pass SN and banking apps, you would need to go back to stock and relock the bootloader
    For the record.

    A few months ago, testing something.. :unsure:

    I was surprised to see the official Lineage build(s) were not user builds.
    Since they are not user builds, they can/will be considered compromised and not properly locked down.
    Some apps will report root or a custom rom.​

    It was pointed out to me (by a cm/los dev I highly respect) that the official Lineage (cyanogenmod) builds have always been debug builds.
    • Switching to user builds would be extremely difficult and way too much time and work for the maintainers.
      Reminder. Most are volunteers that freely give us their time and knowledge.​
    • Some devices might not be able to be supported as a user build.
    • Would limit what you as the user can do with the device.

    Cheers. :cowboy:
    5
    An old Chinese story called The Man who Sold Spears (momo) and Shields (shamiko).

    In the state of Chu lived a man who sold shields and spears.
    "My shields are strong," he boasted, "that nothing can pierce them. My spears are so sharp that there is nothing they cannot pierce."
    "What if one of your spears strikes one of your shields?" someone asked him.
    The man had no answer to that.🤣
    5
    Latest Official TJW public Stable (release) Magisk build:

    Magisk

    2022.7.20 Magisk v25.2​

    Maintenance release fixing various issues.
    • [MagiskInit] Fix a potential issue when stub cpio is used
    • [MagiskInit] Fix reboot to recovery when stub cpio is used
    • [MagiskInit] Fix sepolicy.rules symlink for rootfs devices
    • [General] Better data encryption detection
    • [General] Move the whole logging infrastructure into Rust

    Full Changelog: here

    https://topjohnwu.github.io/Magisk/releases/25200.html

    🎉🎊 PW
    5
    @pndwal You can build Magisk app with custom name and label as you want
    MagiskHide is still effective to hide root from banking apps. It's not dead if you don't care about safetynet stuff.


    Shamiko is taking off your panties on the basic of MagiskHide. So MagiskHide is still better.
    You believe Shamiko too much, It can't really hide zygisk, only fix the zygisk detection of Momo. However, I can't blame it because that was the nature of zygisk and it will never be fixed.
    Still not sure what you're trying to tell me...

    I think we agree on most of this stuff (except your apparent impression that Shamiko Devs have some sort of sexual agenda, or that it's users are somehow prone to 'self abuse'... I won't use the other term either...).

    If you think I have misrepresented any facts regarding Magisk, Shamiko or other, please say it plainly... I think what I provided for the sake of clarity was accurate... 🙁 PW
  • 1084
    This is the place for general support and discussion regarding "Public Releases", which includes both stable and beta releases.
    All information, including troubleshoot guides and notes, are in the Announcement Thread
    156
    Hello, I haven't given much support on XDA lately. It can be resulted from
    • University started and I have limited free time. In fact, I mostly develop during midnight
    • I live in Taiwan, which has large time zone differences between my European/American contributors/testers, which usually forces me to stay up late at night to discuss/test stuffs.
    • The new version is about to come, I don't want to spend effort on supporting old releases
    The planned update is delayed again and again, to some point I think I'll shed some light about what has been happening lately, also along with some announcements.

    New Forum!
    As you might have already discovered, Magisk got its own subforum on XDA! Many thanks to all the support you gave me, and much more information/features/support is about to come!
    **For developers supporting all the devices that are not using standard Android boot format, feel free to create threads in this section (actually, PLEASE do so) for your favorite devices after v7 is out. As I currently know, Asus devices require signing the boot image before flashing, and is model dependant; Sony devices seems to use ELF kernel that is unpatchable, or some has two ramdisks (inner + outer), both requires different workarounds; LG bootloader locked devices has to manually "BUMP" the boot image after flashing Magisk..... and there may be lots of other crazy boot image formats that haven't come up to my attention yet.
    It is impossible for me to support all these non-standard boot images, and I hope the community can collaborate to make Magisk running across all the devices. Overall, community collaboration is what XDA about :D

    The Pixel Phone
    Some of you might already know this news, that the next Pixel Phone right around the corner seems like it does not have ramdisk in boot image, which pretty much wrecked Magisk in all ways. However, it pretty much doomed root itself too. Kernel modifications is inevitable IMO, so I'll try to migrate my scripts to C programs that could possibly be included into the kernel itself. Note that I'm not familiar with linux kernel, I'm not even sure if my idea and concept is correct or not. But once the device is available, I think developers will find a way to bypass all the difficulties, and I'll do my best to learn things ;)

    Current Progress
    In the past month, I've spent quite some time learning SELinux, so that I can avoid using SuperSU's sepolicy patches. Thanks to the helps and tips from @phhusson and @Chainfire, I finally have a much clearer understanding of how SELinux works. The Magisk core parts (the scripts, boot image patches, new features, more supports) are actually done some time ago. What is causing all the delays is the Magisk Manager.
    To be completely honest, although I can code in Java without much issues, Magisk Manager is actually my first Android application, I had to reach out for assistance, and fortunately awesome developers like @DVDandroid and @digitalhigh contributed a lot, which makes the current Manager awesome.
    After the repo system and module management is mostly done, I was about to do some adjustments and release, but what we really done is decided to add another feature: auto-unroot with per-app settings. I decided to wait for it to be finished, and then do my adjustments. Due to reasons that'll be mentioned later, this feature will likely not be available for the next release (should come in future updates)

    Safety Net Disaster
    Those who are using Magisk for Safety Net bypass purposes must have known that Google recently updated the detection method of my Systemless Xposed. I still have no idea what Safety Net is detecting, so currently I cannot fix it on my side (also because I'm busy working on the next update). However, suhide developed by @Chainfire is able to hide Xposed and worked fine.
    However, only my Systemless Xposed v86.2, which is based on SuperSU's su.d, is supported using that method. v86.2 and v86.5 (latest, Magisk based) have nearly identical binaries, and the only difference is the path where the binaries are stored.
    I'm still not sure what's the real issue for it not being supported, I just hope it is not done intentionally.

    Conclusion
    Due to the fact that my Safety Net bypass is not 100% perfect now, I do not want to spend any more time waiting for auto-unroot to be polished. What I'm doing now is finishing up all the things I'd like to change in Magisk Manager (it has been a while since I last contributed to Manager, my fellow developers are doing all the heavy job), which might take a little more time, after that, packed with tons of information to be announced in Magisk Section, I'll release the long awaited update.

    Hope this lengthy post gives you the idea of the whole situation, and again thanks for all your support!!
    121
    Ah, some Chainfire bashing, I hope it is not too late for me to exercise additional villainy.

    First, let me make clear I have nothing against @topjohnwu, nor against Magisk. Magisk is an interesting project and it certainly displays @topjohnwu ingenuity and persistence. I don't doubt we will see more interesting things from his hands.

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

    What has happened here is not all that dark and complicated, from either end. I returned from holidays, and someone pointed me at Magisk. My first thought: interesting!

    Among other things, the thread lists some issues with SuperSU, which in combination with the phrase The developer also requests users to not bug Chainfire with compatibility requests for SuperSU with Magisk from the portal article, raised my left eyebrow by nigh half an inch. The popular systemless xposed mod is apparently now based on it, and apparently it now no longer works with SuperSU, and apparently I'm not supposed to fix that, nor any of the other found issues. I found that a bit weird. So yes, I have told @topjohnwu that I was a bit surprised he was posting about issues with SuperSU without notifying me about them (I can't fix or help fix issues I'm not aware of, after all).

    He's also spreading a modified version of the SuperSU package, which is not all that uncommon, nor necessarily a problem. I have not looked into what he modified, I only ran a few quick tests on one of my devices, and found some commonly used commands run as root to be broken. I have informed him of this as well.

    It appears the tool of choice for Magisk is phh's Superuser, because of some of the mentioned issues with SuperSU. That's fine by itself, but fixing issues in that superuser by incorporating SuperSU's binaries into it is a somewhat questionable practise. After all, SuperSU is a commercial closed-source package that helps pay for my dinner, and superuser is a direct competitor. I have informed him that I was surprised he did this without asking for permission. I have expressed similar surprise on him spreading a modified version of LiveBoot (which helps pay for a snack now and then).
    @topjohnwu has also stated that Magisk's scripts are largely influenced by mine (I have not checked). Scripts based on mine are used all over the place on XDA, some people have crafted amazing things based on them, I have never made an issue of this (otherwise I would have just made them binaries). But yes, I have also stated to him that I don't think it's very nice to base something on one program, and then using that to (almost exclusively) push something directly competing with that program.

    tl;dr Towards @topjohnwu, I have:
    - expressed surprise he has issues getting Magisk to work with SuperSU, and has chosen not to inform me about those
    - expressed surprise he is using SuperSU binaries in a competing superuser without permission
    - expressed surprise he is posting a modified LiveBoot without permission
    - informed him of issues with the modified SuperSU he has posted
    - let him know I thought it wasn't very nice to be applying my scripts to benefit seemingly exclusively that same competing superuser

    To be crystal clear:
    - I have not asked for an apology
    - I have not asked for Magisk to be abandoned, neither the root hiding nor systemless module parts, and certainly not systemless xposed
    - I have not made an issue of any of this anywhere, until this post
    - I have not even specifically asked for anything to be taken down (though obviously in my opinion the other superuser package mixed with SuperSU's binaries, as well as the LiveBoot package, should go)
    - I have not reported this thread to XDA moderators for copyright violations or otherwise

    While my conversation with @topjohnwu may not win any awards for being friendly (though it may win some for brevity), I think all things considered my response has been rather mild. To be perfectly honest, until the apology post, I thought this was over with already. I think the apology post was triggered because I haven't replied to his last PM for a while - I was in the zone, it happens.

    To emphasize again, I have nothing against @topjohnwu, Magisk, or systemless xposed, and it is certainly not my goal to see any of them go. If it can be made to work together with SuperSU, great.

    I get it though: you think of something, you want to see if you can make it work, you finally get it to work, you publish it, it takes off - enthusiasm gets the better of you. Maybe in the rush some mistakes are made. That doesn't mean you have to just drop it and run. None of my stuff would make it past 0.1 if I stopped at the first big mistake :)

    Aside from said being in the zone coding, I usually regret actually responding to these sort of things the day after, which has made me hesitant to reply. Surprise me.
    76
    Thread temporarily closed so everyone sees this.

    The flood of "SafetyNet isn't working for me either!" posts are not helpful, at all. Please refrain from posting further, it will be looked into. Please do not forget that not passing SafetyNet is 100% NORMAL AND INTENDED when you have an unlocked booloader or running custom firmware. These are workarounds and they will be worked around in turn.

    The Flash
    Forum Moderator

    EDIT: Thread is reopened... I will be cleaning any SafetyNet posts for a while to keep the thread clean for real issues.
    75
    Hello everyone!

    I am aware that Google has updated Safety Net that makes Magisk itself a no go for Android Pay. In fact, I witnessed the change live while I am developing the new magiskhide, which should hide all Magisk modules and Magisk installed root.

    Google is serious about Safety Net now, clearly hunting down all possibility to run Xposed with Safety Net passed. I spend quite some time examining the new security measures last midnight, and fortunately it seems that it is possible to run Magisk and root along with Safety Net if no Xposed is running. I'm glad I removed the old root toggle at the right time lol, that is no longer feasible with the latest detection.

    So stay tuned for the next update, it will come with bug fixes, along with the new magiskhide to bypass that Safety Net.

    Google, how will a few systemless mods do any harm :p:p