revanced-patcher
revanced-patcher copied to clipboard
ReVanced
Travel back in time for failing patches
Problem
Currently, a failing patch can be destructive. This means if a patch fails it could cause problems on the patched application.
Solution
This can be solved by traveling back in time. This is possible since mutable instances of the modified classes are being created which can be discarded if the patch fails.
Feats
Resources are not being copied. This means any action on resources can still be destructive. For that, a temporal clone of the resource can be held in memory or in the cache for the duration of the patch. If it fails the patcher can revert the changes on the resources.
I have 2 methods of doing this:
- snapshots.
- keeping track of changes.
1 can be memory intensive but easy to develop, 2 is quite hard to develop and I don't know exactly how to pull that off right now.
In that case its as easy as it can get. All mutable classes pass are created in the proxy() method, which means you can store them in a list, if the patch succeeds, merge them as it currently is being done, or discard them, if the patch fails - for each patch.
This whole proposal is very memory expensive. Reminder, we're running on Android (on-device) here. I'm slowly starting to think this on-device goal was a bad idea x)
This whole proposal is very memory expensive. Reminder, we're running on Android (on-device) here. I'm slowly starting to think this on-device goal was a bad idea x)
I agree on that. I'm not sure this feature would make sense on Android here. My phone has 12gb of ram so that wouldn't be a problem, but not many people have access to that. But no reason to cancel the on-device goal. The manager is a must for revanced.
This whole proposal is very memory expensive. Reminder, we're running on Android (on-device) here. I'm slowly starting to think this on-device goal was a bad idea x)
The proposal at max does not add more than couple megabytes. So the patcher will only have to backup around lets say 100 classes at max, if they create that many that is.
The patcher doesn't know which classes will be changed. You have to make a snapshot of every class. Add another 500 MB or so.
No, the patcher knows which classes will be changed. This is due to the proxy() class I mentioned above. Each patch only modifies the classes it intendeds to. Hence the patcher knows which classes it needs to backup.
Fingerprints which do not access the mutable members also are considered in this process and will also work the same way. Keep in mind, we already have a cache for ALL proxied classes, I would even say this proposal does not add ANY additional memory.
I would even say this proposal does not add ANY additional memory.
This is not true, because we still need a snapshot of the class when it's proxied (multiple patches can access the same proxy, so you can't just "drop" the proxy). But feel free to PR the change and benchmark the impact of it.
No, the snapshot already exists. Its in the ProxyBackedClasses class, no additional copy is required -> no additional memory.
No, the snapshot already exists. Its in the ProxyBackedClasses class, no additional copy is required -> no additional memory.
Well, you'll find out yourself then x)