Verify app backup integrity

[grote]

Adds a new option to app backup section in settings which brings up a new screen for checking app backups. User can define how large the random sample to be checked shall be, from 5% to 100%. Then checking happens in the background reporting progress in a notification. A final notification gets shown when the process finished when brings up a detailed report about the issues found, if any. Usually, a success screen is shown.

Here the error case:

Screen_recording_20241030_100936.mp4

Fixes #290

[t-m-w]

I've been testing this with a USB drive.

If the drive is removed during the integrity check, the error is: java.io.IOException: Unable to create directory: .SeedVaultAndroidBackup

Some bits from the log (let me know if you want more):

10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract: Failed to create document
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract: android.os.ParcelableException: java.io.FileNotFoundException: No root for 880F-1711
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.ParcelableException$1.createFromParcel(ParcelableException.java:82)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.ParcelableException$1.createFromParcel(ParcelableException.java:79)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.Parcel.readParcelableInternal(Parcel.java:5016)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.Parcel.readParcelable(Parcel.java:4998)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.Parcel.createExceptionOrNull(Parcel.java:3178)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.Parcel.createException(Parcel.java:3167)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.os.Parcel.readException(Parcel.java:3150)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.database.DatabaseUtils.readExceptionFromParcel(DatabaseUtils.java:202)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.database.DatabaseUtils.readExceptionFromParcel(DatabaseUtils.java:154)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.content.ContentProviderProxy.call(ContentProviderNative.java:764)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.content.ContentResolver.call(ContentResolver.java:2466)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at android.provider.DocumentsContract.createDocument(DocumentsContract.java:1380)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at androidx.documentfile.provider.TreeDocumentFile.createFile(TreeDocumentFile.java:54)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at androidx.documentfile.provider.TreeDocumentFile.createDirectory(TreeDocumentFile.java:64)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at org.calyxos.seedvault.core.backends.saf.SafHelperKt.createDirectoryOrThrow(SafHelper.kt:90)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at org.calyxos.seedvault.core.backends.saf.SafHelperKt.getOrCreateDirectory(SafHelper.kt:85)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at org.calyxos.seedvault.core.backends.saf.DocumentFileCache.getRootFile$packages__apps__Seedvault__core__android_common__seedvault_lib_core(DocumentFileCache.kt:27)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at org.calyxos.seedvault.core.backends.saf.DocumentFileCache.getOrCreateFile$packages__apps__Seedvault__core__android_common__seedvault_lib_core(DocumentFileCache.kt:33)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at org.calyxos.seedvault.core.backends.saf.SafBackend.list(SafBackend.kt:116)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at com.stevesoltys.seedvault.repo.Checker.getBackupSizeInt(Checker.kt:66)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at com.stevesoltys.seedvault.repo.Checker.check(Checker.kt:87)
10-31 12:55:55.357 10162  4908  4934 W DocumentsContract:       at com.stevesoltys.seedvault.worker.AppCheckerWorker.doWork(AppCheckerWorker.kt:73)

I don't see it as a blocker for this change at all, but in the future, it would be nice to be able to perform operations that we know will never attempt to modify a repository even when something fails or is missing, and even if that's just a directory. I can create an issue for that if you want.

[t-m-w]

My guess is that, for a newly-restored device, this feature is only able to check the integrity of preexisting backups if "Reuse" was chosen after Restore. Is that right?

I actually did not choose "Create new backup" or "Reuse" - I got out of the choice by simply closing Seedvault, since at the moment I wasn't wanting to alter the backups at all and wasn't yet intending to turn on "Back up" of anything - so it would be whatever is the default behavior in that strange scenario.

Currently, if I go to Restore, I see 4 snapshots available. After checking them, the verification screen shows that it only found and checked one.

Screenshots

It won't be super common, but it could happen that users may wonder why the verification doesn't check all of the snapshots that they can see in Restore. I wonder how to explain that.

[t-m-w]

My guess is that, for a newly-restored device, this feature is only able to check the integrity of preexisting backups if "Reuse" was chosen after Restore. Is that right?

I think I can answer my own question with "yes" based on further testing.

Now I have a new question:

If I only see three snapshots in Restore, and then I do an integrity check for 100% of it, then shouldn't any file I alter in .SeedVaultAndroidBackup be detected in some way? Especially if the check reports that they were all fine? That's where this all gets tricky for me to tell if it's working. I've sometimes needed to alter multiple files before anything is noticed and I'm not sure why. Most recently I chose to edit .SeedVaultAndroidBackup/0e34403e2359375a.sv/6b/6b658a522ed7801afa0c7204ad65e354df818253da65c2293fe067a7124c900e (probably meaningless here, but it's part of a backup set I keep a main copy of, and that I keep reusing for testing and am willing to share, so it will remain relevant to that set), changing a single byte, and it wasn't detected. Maybe it's not referenced anymore.

[grote]

it would be nice to be able to perform operations that we know will never attempt to modify a repository even when something fails or is missing, and even if that's just a directory.

This is actually a feature, not a bug ;)

I agree it would be nice not to modify anything for certain operations. However, how the backends now work is to create folders only when they are needed and not only when the backup is initialized. This simplified the design and eliminated a class of bugs we used to have. Also, creating directories should be totally harmless and not interfere with the backup.

What may be happening with the flash drive is that it confuses the exception that gets thrown for the missing drive to mean the the directory is missing and then tries to create it.

My guess is that, for a newly-restored device, this feature is only able to check the integrity of preexisting backups if "Reuse" was chosen after Restore. Is that right?

Yes, if you don't re-use, there's normally no backups to check on your backend as a new recovery code gets created.

I actually did not choose "Create new backup" or "Reuse" - I got out of the choice by simply closing Seedvault

That does sound like a bug (unrelated to this MR). Could you try to reproduce please and then open a new ticket with the steps? The expected behavior is that you get asked again until you make a decision.

I see 4 snapshots available. After checking them, the verification screen shows that it only found and checked one.

Did you do a backup before using the check feature? There's one from 45min ago, this may be it? So this would explain why it can only check that one snapshot while there's others (bound to other keys/codes) on your storage drive. But then I wonder why it even offers those backups for restore. Could it be that those are v1 backups?

If I only see three snapshots in Restore, and then I do an integrity check for 100% of it, then shouldn't any file I alter in .SeedVaultAndroidBackup be detected in some way?

Yes, if it doesn't find an issue even though you are sure you corrupted an essential file (in the right folder being used for backups), then I need to logs of that check run to debug.

I chose to edit .SeedVaultAndroidBackup/0e34403e2359375a.sv/6b/6b658a522ed7801afa0c7204ad65e354df818253da65c2293fe067a7124c900e

yeah that isn't the right thing to mess with. 0e34403e2359375a.sv is the backup repository used for files backup which is totally separate. I'll be doing verification for that next, but as files backup is a separate thing, the checking will also be a separate thing.

[t-m-w]

I actually did not choose "Create new backup" or "Reuse" - I got out of the choice by simply closing Seedvault

That does sound like a bug (unrelated to this MR). Could you try to reproduce please and then open a new ticket with the steps? The expected behavior is that you get asked again until you make a decision.

Filed here: #789

I see 4 snapshots available. After checking them, the verification screen shows that it only found and checked one.

Did you do a backup before using the check feature? There's one from 45min ago, this may be it?

Yes.

Could it be that those are v1 backups?

This is part of a test set I have been calling "v2", so I don't think so, but it's possible I guess. I can't remember. How would I tell? (Edit: They're definitely not all v1, but it's possible at least one of them is.)

yeah that isn't the right thing to mess with. 0e34403e2359375a.sv is the backup repository used for files backup which is totally separate. I'll be doing verification for that next, but as files backup is a separate thing, the checking will also be a separate thing.

That explains that! I will do a little more testing with files in other folders, then.

[grote]

Filed here: #789

Thanks!

They're definitely not all v1, but it's possible at least one of them is.

Ok, so the ticket above seems to suggest that you already restored a previous backup with this Seedvault installation. So it did import the old key then. This explains why it can offer the old backups for restore. However, it didn't do the re-use thing, so it created a new backup repository for new backups where it does its checks in.

[t-m-w]

Tested by:

• Altering a single byte in a file (within a sha256 hash app-backups folder)
• Removing a single file (within a sha256 hash app-backups folder)

It detected issues in either scenario. I think this is good.

[grote]

@t-m-w thanks for your testing!

Before merging, could you please re-test the latest version of this MR by

• Altering a single byte in a file (within the app backup repo folder (sha256 hash))
• Adding/removing a single byte in a file (within the app backup repo folder (sha256 hash))

Then seeing if the check catches those modifications and re-trying after doing a new backup. The expectation is that the new backup is fine, but that old backups still show errors.