From 5d122d96a5bf3bbaccaca2765b45716efe7ee2ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dianne Hackborn <hackbod@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:37:07 -0700
Subject: Better documentation on permission checking in
 ContentProvider.call().

Change-Id: I4a85fd17362c2a32e2b1365fcc07ef0336521616
---
 core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

(limited to 'core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java')

diff --git a/core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java b/core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java
index 8aef4051cfba..496826888fad 100644
--- a/core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java
+++ b/core/java/android/content/ContentProvider.java
@@ -1256,6 +1256,13 @@ public abstract class ContentProvider implements ComponentCallbacks2 {
      * interfaces that are cheaper and/or unnatural for a table-like
      * model.
      *
+     * <p class="note"><strong>WARNING:</strong> The framework does no permission checking
+     * on this entry into the content provider besides the basic ability for the application
+     * to get access to the provider at all.  For example, it has no idea whether the call
+     * being executed may read or write data in the provider, so can't enforce those
+     * individual permissions.  Any implementation of this method <strong>must</strong>
+     * do its own permission checks on incoming calls to make sure they are allowed.</p>
+     *
      * @param method method name to call.  Opaque to framework, but should not be {@code null}.
      * @param arg provider-defined String argument.  May be {@code null}.
      * @param extras provider-defined Bundle argument.  May be {@code null}.
-- 
cgit v1.2.3