| ▲ | GrapheneOS – When an app is slow(blog.wirelessmoves.com) |
| 68 points by speckx 3 hours ago | 33 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | negative_zero 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Odd. Google Pixel 7 with GrapheneOS here. OsmAnd works perfectly fine for me without disabling any exploit protection options. |
| |
| ▲ | BlackRabbit1 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | CoMaps behaves very very weirdly on GrapheneOS. Same with OrganicMaps. Osmand and GMaps are working fine. Waze is almost melting the poor thing. Beside of that working fine. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Groxx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Huh. Yeah, it is noticeably faster on my 9a with that disabled. I wonder what they're doing differently... |
| |
|
| ▲ | hadi77ir an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if a website using leaflet.js has better or worse performance in the said case. If it does better, then maybe the problem is on OsmAnd's side? |
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe the actual solution is to improve, replace the application. |
| |
| ▲ | izacus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or maybe there's a reason why the mainline Android OEMs don't ship that allocator by default. | | |
| ▲ | Groxx 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The fairly obvious answer here is "OEMs don't care about security because very few people will pay for it, either with $ or time". Benchmaxxing sells better. | | |
| ▲ | izacus 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's trivially provable as false. | | |
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | If so, I'd love to know which OEM you're thinking of who ships an Android distro more secure than GrapheneOS. | | |
| ▲ | izacus an hour ago | parent [-] | | Let's first start with y'all providing any proof that it was "benchmaxxing" that causes OEMs not to ship hardened allocators (and not - for example - breaking compatibility with users' software). And then we can move the goalposts to "more secure distro with GrapheneOS" which isn't part of the conversation until you dragged it out. | | |
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If you're expecting some leaked internal document that says "priorities: 1. benchmarks, 2. security", no, that probably doesn't exist. But their priorities are revealed by their actions. GrapheneOS typically ships security updates within a day. But most of Samsung's phones get quarterly security updates[1]. There will never be a primary source with a Samsung insider saying "we're fine with our customers being vulnerable to widely exploited security bugs for the next 89 days, in order to save our massive corporation a few thousand dollars a month." But their priorities are revealed by their actions. If the statement "OEMs don't care about security" is trivially proven false, as you said, then you should be able to prove it trivially by naming even just a single OEM whose update cadence matches GrapheneOS's. [1]: https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb | | |
| ▲ | Groxx 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Also look at their advertising. Endless "X% faster" mentions that often get significant visual space, but when was the last time you saw "security updates 7 days earlier" or "tagged memory for better safety"? Even a single mention of "security" on a phone's manufacturer page is uncommon, and that's usually just mentioning a normal Android feature, or something like Knox or Secure Folder and not "we made choices that make a common class of attacks much more difficult or impossible". The numbers aren't zero, certainly. But they are incredibly obviously given wholly different levels of attention. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because they cut costs on hardware and not all ship MTE enabled ARMs. | |
| ▲ | palata an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe... legacy? |
| |
| ▲ | mohamedkoubaa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There needs to be a wall of shame for apps that abuse hardware owned by users | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How's it abusing anything? It's an Android app that works fine with the default Android memory allocator. | | |
| ▲ | pjmlp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The AOSP memory allocator is seldom the one used by OEMs. | | |
| ▲ | rpdillon an hour ago | parent [-] | | Really? They're not using Scudo? The hardened_malloc used in GrapheneOS has a bunch of performance issues that were trade-offs against security. Every other major android distribution uses scudo as far as I know. Which OEMs are you thinking of? Edit: Did some research after writing this? It appears that Samsung may be still using jemalloc, albeit a newer version than the one from the Android 11 days. |
| |
| ▲ | perching_aix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't being abusive, just that said allocator tolerates it okay. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | RKearney 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Before installing, please turn off all anti-virus and firewall software." |
|
| ▲ | perching_aix 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you have two apps, both maps... > The reason behind it is the hardened memory allocator, which seems to create a significant overhead for Osmand. That might be because scrolling a map requires constant loading and discarding of data. ... is this really the right hunch, over e.g. the OpenStreetMaps app lacking in discipline with its heap allocations? |
| |
| ▲ | himata4113 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Seems unlikely, it's java so this is likely related to loading large amounts of objects and having the GC thrashing. | | |
|
