yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[SuperSU] nicolap8:
Hi all,

I'm trying to install SuperSU on a Huawei Y6 (Dual SIM, SCL-L21, unlocked bootloader, Lollipop 5.1.1, EMUI 3.1).

I installed from TWRP stable 2.65 and beta 2.71, both SYSTEMLESS and not. Before every installation I reflashed the original ROM and wiped cache and data partitions.

The result is ever the same:

- the SuperSU app says that there is not su.

- if an app try to enter root the request dialog appears but the su daemon not receive the information (not important if grant or deny) and the apps continue to wait.

So, what can interfere?

There are suggestions?

Thanks

Nicola
[SuperSU] :
Why is the Superuser.apk from download.chainfire.eu/supersu-stable different from the one in play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.supersu ? They both claim to be v2.65.
[SuperSU] egingell:
They look the same to me. I don't know what you expect.

Sent from: SGS5 - LP 5.1.1 / SGS4 - LP 5.0.1
[SuperSU] LoverBoy2415:
They are the same..are you telling about the Logo ?
[SuperSU] :
The sha256sum of Superuser.apk inside UPDATE-SuperSU-v2.65-20151226141550.zip is 85baf54272e076e22f421952aef37ff9aac0e838e7256d98143d72d6feebb35b.

The sha256sum of eu.chainfire.supersu-265.apk downloaded from Google Play store is aa8d46370440d6eb74e9e24a6249c89ef601315c1b9bd9f98f34d2b14221ef8d.

Both APKs claim to be version 2.65. I am asking why these two APKs are different.
[SuperSU] pkelly517:
Maybe additional zip signing required for GP submission?
[SuperSU] :
It's not that.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
I wonder if someone can assist me - so far I've been unable to find a definitive answer to this...

I'm running Cyanogenmod 13 with SELinux set to enforcing. Because of enforcing mode, SuperSU won't work if I flash it as a system app (eg. by flashing v2.52). It gets stuck on the bootloader image and won't go further. It only installs as a system app if I set SELinux to permissive, but I don't want to do that.

Therefore I've flashed SuperSU 2.65, which installs automatically in systemless mode. Works great. The phone boots into CM nicely and SuperSU runs just fine.

However, when I flash a new CM nightly, it erases the SuperSU binary. The SuperSU app is still there, but it prompts to install the binary again, which means rebooting into recovery and flashing the binary there - not an ideal scenario. My goal is to be able to flash a new nightly without needing to flash anything else.

My question is this: is there any way to have the binaries survive the flashing of a nightly, without me needing to reflash SuperSU every time I flash a new nightly? With CM12 (previous version), which also used SELinux set to enforcing, SuperSU installed as a system app and provided an addon.d script which allowed the binaries to survive nightly flashing. But this doesn't seem available with CM13 and SuperSU running as a systemless app. Is there any way around that? And why do the binaries get wiped anyway, when it's installed systemless?
[SuperSU] Fif_:
Unfortunately, you have to reflash systemless SuperSU after every ROM update. And Xposed as well, if you use it.
[SuperSU] knpk13:
Just flash SuperSU right after flashing the ROM, like you flash gapps. Not a big deal. Takes 7 seconds. Systemless works differently, so no backup script. The script is actually unnecessary because of the new cleaner root method. Systemless patches boot.IMG, flashing a new ROM might overwrite that. Re flashing is less of a hassle than than a backup script and ensures complete reliability. Youd know if you read the OP.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
Thanks [MENTION=5297163]Fif_[/MENTION] for the helpful answer and confirming my suspicions.

Do you have any idea why the system method doesn't work with CM13 and SELinux set to enforcing? Even though the system method *did* work fine with the previous version CM12 and SELinux also set to enforcing? What changed between CM12 and CM13 that prevents SuperSU from working as a system app? (I know that may be more of a CM question, but it's still also a SuperSU question and I haven't had any luck asking in the CM forums so far).

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 PM ----------

[MENTION=7134312]knpk13[/MENTION], it actually *is* a big deal to have to flash SuperSU after every new nightly. That's because CM nightlies are delivered OTA, and are flashed automatically by the ROM itself without me needing to manually reboot into Recovery and go through the steps of selecting the ZIP file and flashing it myself. But the automated process means it obviously can't flash any other files at the same time.

I also don't need to reflash gapps either, because (open)gapps comes with a backup script of its own that lets it survive OTA nightly updates. So the only obstacle I have is the systemless SuperSU, which loses its binaries after each flash. If it wasn't for that, I could have nicely automated OTA updates with the tap of a button, with no manual flashing whatsoever.

Therefore a backup script actually *is* necessary, to allow SuperSU to survive OTA updates. Which is what the original backup script did in the first place.

FWIW, I had already read the OP - it doesn't say anything about reflashing being less of a hassle. In fact it says the opposite: it mentions the original backup script exists "to survive CyanogenMod nightlies", and offers the benefit of "OTA survival mode". Obviously the ability to do so was considered an advantage.

The conclusion that I have sadly reached is that SuperSU is no longer feasible or practical for CM13 (or Marshmallow) when SELinux is set to enforcing, and when OTA updates are being used.
[SuperSU] jesssiii:
Wouldn't the nightly overwrite the patched boot image since it contains it's own boot image?

Also, wondering why not just use the superuser included in CM? Not being contentious, really wondering. I haven't used CM on my 6P, or since marshmallow.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
That's a good and valid question! I have considered using CM's built-in superuser instead - it would make OTA updates nice and simple, and it looks like I'll have to stick with it for that reason.

The reason I prefer to use SuperSU instead, is that it's much easier to find SuperSU - it's right there in my app drawer. CM's superuser is buried deep in the system settings and is *not* intuitive or quick to locate. Also, SuperSU has a really nice interface and a nice, advanced feature set. It's very configurable.

I think you're right that the nightly will also overwrite the patched boot image too. Therefore a backup script would need to also back up the boot image. I don't see why that should be a problem though, especially if the user was willing to accept any perceived risk.
[SuperSU] zelendel:
One of the biggest issues is that their built in root set up has not been updated in years as the developer stopped working with cm.

It's one of the reasons that even roms built off of cm remove it and replace it with this one.
[SuperSU] zelendel:
It does work as a system app. It's just cm making it hard to use anything that they don't want you to. This is also part of the reason people have started moving away from CM all together.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
Unfortunately there aren't many decent alternatives for my phone - most of the alternative roms are bloated with too many extra bells and whistles and are not so stable (I realise that's somewhat subjective). CM has its problems, but one thing I like about it is its simplicity and stability. :)
[SuperSU] zelendel:
I understand. Mainly using a Samsung device. If it was me. I would stay stock over using cm. Too much of a risk with them.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
Personally I don't see any risk with CM - it's quite stable, even the nightlies. I never experience crashes or other problems. On my phone, stock (from Samsung) is way too bloated and slow in comparison to CM. But, of course, that's my personal preference! ;)
[SuperSU] zelendel:
The risk is them merging untested code that has even bricked nexus devices. Also the security concerns with their recovery and SU not being updated in years leaves lots of concerns.

I understand. My work phone is a galaxy s5 active that has no root at all for it.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
I don't think that's really an issue with CM anymore though. For sure they test their code - although obviously any user should be careful when using nightlies, as nightlies are by nature more likely to have bugs. That's not unique to CM though! I don't use CM's recovery, I use TWRP. And their superuser has definitely been updated recently. It was overhauled with CM12, to integrate it with their Privacy Guard feature, and it's certainly been modified to work with CM13 (Marshmallow) too. :)
[SuperSU] zelendel:
Have a watch of their github. It's well known that they merge things without being tested. That is why most have stopped using them as a base and went through the trouble of redoing their whole rom based off of aosp instead.

It was not really updated. You can look over the code yourself and see that no real changes have been made since the developer of it left cm and refused to work with them again.

I mean don't get me wrong. If it's good for you then cool. Just not a risk I can run myself.

Now we have derailed this long enough. Let's get back on topic of this thread.
[SuperSU] Fif_:
No idea why.

I'm using a fairly recent OmniROM 6 with SuperSU in enforcing mode without a hitch.
[SuperSU] zelendel:
It works on every rom that is not cm based. Those that are have replaced theirs with this one.
[SuperSU] knpk13:
Makes sense in your case. You're right. My usage differs as I don't use official builds with OTA. Point noted. Anyway Marshmallow has certain security features which won't let you use the system root, so SuperSU automatically selects systemless. There is no backup script for watching boot.img. try automating it or use built in root manager. A detailed explanation of why it won't work in cm13 is somewhere on XDA, I don't remember where. You'll find it if you read about the history of systemless root.
[SuperSU] evildog1:
Hello,

I was trying to install SuperSU binaries on Bluestacks 2, because it has "su" execution exploit and some apps are not working correctly with "su" exploit. After installation, SuperSU is working perfectly until i restart Bluestacks, and the "su" execution is not working anymore. root is completely lost and i'm not able to root Bluestacks with any of root apps and SuperSU. I have tried to enable OTA survival before reproduce this, but it didn't help. SuperSU binary and recovery script are still there but it can't execute "su"!

I have tried to root Bluestacks with Kingroot, restart it and the root was permanent. root is working perfectly and it never go away.

Can you or someone try to find out what cause "su" execution not to work even it is still installed?
[SuperSU] lolle.santoso:
The SU binary needs be to updated. Continu? Installation failed! Please reboot and try again.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

The SU binary needs to be updated. Continue ? Installation failed ! Please reboot and try again
[SuperSU] LoverBoy2415:
Are you Trying Update the Binary Via Apk& Getting This Error ? .. Try Flashing The Zip File in Recovery it Will Work..
[SuperSU] :
Is there any progress regarding finding out why the APK uploaded to the Google Play store is different from the APK available through XDA in the first post?

I always worry when a developer uploads different APKs to different places - especially since Google Play store performs tests for malicious behavior and XDA does not.
[SuperSU] knpk13:
Read this post about SELinux

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66339308&postcount=1356
[SuperSU] Nimueh:
You can't possibly think that a dev like [MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION] would risk his reputation in order to spread a virus or whatever? :rolleyes:

The difference probably has to do with how the apk was signed or the Playstore version is required to have something the other doesn't. I wouldn't worry about it.
[SuperSU] tiendatbh:
BETA SUPERSU 2.71 ON N910C 6.0.1 STOCK BUG : FUNCTION NOT WORK : Screen rotation .
[SuperSU] knpk13:
update: I tried some CM based roms like RR which had supersu built in, installed in system mode. They work fine and survive OTA's, though I suspect that is a feature of the ROM itself which reflashes SuperSU instead of using a backup script, or a different implmentation. But the app says that the backup script is installed and working., FYI.
[SuperSU] StuttgartKiwi:
Yes, you're right that some other rom developers, whose roms are based on CM, will bake SuperSU into the rom itself, meaning that it's there and works fine and obviously stays there after an update. In such a scenario a backup script isn't needed because SuperSU and its binaries are baked into the rom itself. Unfortunately the official CM rom doesn't allow this. :(
[SuperSU] :
I don't have a clear answer. Maybe [MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION] will, when he has time.

But, you are basically suggesting that an XDA Senior Moderator and Senior Recognized Developer may include malicious content for XDA users? :confused:

I see you are new here, so let's call it not knowing on your behalf. But I suggest if you are that concerned about a file posted by an extremely respected member and staff member of XDA, then this hobby is not for you. How could you trust anyone? Also, we all are responsible for what we flash on our devices, no one else. Flash it or don't. Your choice.

:good:
[SuperSU] Chainfire:
CCMT has been the legal owner of SuperSU for some time now. The only reason SuperSU still says published by Chainfire is because Google can't figure out how to transfer the app to CCMT's account (I kid you not). Yet another task too complex for Google.

All versions posted by me, for download from the chainfire.eu domain, are built on my computer using only my own code or code that I have vetted, and signed and uploaded by me personally to my own webserver that I fully control; with consent from CCMT.

All versions posted to the Play store (starting v2.65) are built and uploaded by CCMT, also based on my code. I would assume the exact same code, however I am not there to look over their shoulders, so this is not something I can absolutely guarantee for all versions.

However it should be noted that there are significant legal protections in place to make sure nothing shady happens, and I have personally decompiled and verified the Play v2.65 version to be the same code as my v2.65 version. I might also note that the latter is not a complex job, I'm surprised nobody else has done it.
[SuperSU] Manuel15:
1) How do you know XDA doesn't test for malicious behavior?

2) Some people's phone got infected downloading stuff from Google Play (as I heard), so I wouldn't be so sure everything is safe on Google Play either.

Anyway, about SuperSU: you don't have to worry, as someone else said, Chainfire is Senior Recognized Developer, he would never insert viruses in his apps...
[SuperSU] skyhirules:
WRONG TOPIC.

Sent from my Xperia Z1 Compact with XDA app.
[SuperSU] Zibale:
Hi, I've been unable to make any of the last versions (2.65/2.68/2.71) work on my moto g (2nd gen), I kept stuck in the bootloader warning screen. Is there any way to root my phone on android 6 ?
[SuperSU] :
Thank you very much for your reply. Of course I have trust in you and believe you to be a stellar developer, you have done lots for our community - I was merely worried about this lack of information regarding the difference in the APKs. It is very new information for me that the builds on Google Play store are not built by you, but by CCMT - and I am sure the people who were replying to me before did not know this either. The only verification I am able to do is to unzip the two APKs and do a diff between them - I found some differences in binary files, and at that point I did not know how to proceed.

As you can see, I was right to question why the APKs were different.

As you can see, I was right to question why the APKs were different.

As you can see, I was right to question why the APKs were different.
[SuperSU] Nimueh:
Not really :confused:

It was announced several months ago that SuperSU has been sold ... why should I worry about some minor differences in the apks now?

I trust [MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION] and don't really worry about it, and I'm sure that's how most of us see it ;)
[SuperSU] :
Because SuperSU is an application with root privileges - hence you should worry if anything looks even remotely suspicious.

I trust [MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION] too. I have no established trust relation with CCMT though - I don't know them. The Play Store version is built by CCMT, not Chainfire. Because I trust Chainfire more than CCMT, I will use the version from Chainfire. That's what people should know.
[SuperSU] Nimueh:
Well then you better start looking for a new solution because he also announced that he will be slowly phasing out his involvement and then SuperSU will only be made by CCMT.
[SuperSU] Vinnom:
Zibale, Moto X 2014 had the same issue, but it hadn't nothing to do with superSU.

Basically, something in boot.img changed from 5.1 to 6.0 (if I'm not mistaken, was the kernel), so we need to flash custom boot.img and then apply superSU. Please, ask some developer or enthusiast of Moto G 2014 to modify it so you can flash superSU again

MOTO X user since 03/2015 =)

NEXUS 4 user 2013-2015 =/

Current ROM: Stock

Kernel: Krait

Profiles for Unleashed Synapse: DRIVE or MEGA
[SuperSU] LoverBoy2415:
And YES :) ..When I Replied you Earlier about your Post, I too Don't Know About It ,Till [MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION] Gave The Info.. :) ... Anyhow Your Question Got The Answer By The 'Great One' itself ..
[SuperSU] DBin_K:
Thank you:o
[SuperSU] d.casper.b:
I flashed SuperSU 2.65 in TWRP on my Moto X Style (XT1572) and I got stuck in a bootloop. Then I tried flashing 2.62-3 as suggested and still was stuck. Then I found a script to uninstall SuperSU and managed to get back into the system again. But when I go into TWRP and use the file manager I see a /supersu folder with files (Superuser.apk, 99SuperSUDaemon, install-recovery.sh and others). How can I delete this folder and all other SuperSU related files so that I can start from scratch and then first backup my rom before trying to flash it again? When I delete the folder, it just returns - some script somewhere?

Remember I still don't have root.

I tried flashing the stock rom but it keeps failing, so I really don't know what to do.
[SuperSU] shoey63:
Those files are part of the twrp recovery ramdisk and can't be deleted. They are for when the option to root with supersu is selected in twrp (LP and older). They disappear when you boot into android.
[SuperSU] d.casper.b:
Awesome! I managed to get a firmware that flashed successfully. The supersu folder was still there, so I thought it either is very stubborn, or the firmware flashing didn't really do anything, or it really has nothing to do with this SuperSU. Thank you for confirming.

And any other advice on flashing SuperSU from anyone would be much appreciated. I couldn't boot after flashing 2.65.

A friend from these forums said he flashed 2.65 as well, but he did this (below) first to have systemless root before flashing the zip:

In TWRP File Terminal, enter the command:

"echo SYSTEMLESS=true>>/data/.supersu"

Check Systemless with:

cat /data/.supersu

Make sure the terminal returns SYSTEMLESS=true

I'm actually a little confused with all of this. There is SuperSU Stable, Experimental, Beta. The experimental thread is talking about systemless install. Beta is supposedly systemless but it's not mentioned in the OP. The changelogs show systemless here and there in this thread. From what I deduced v2.65 is systemless (see some changes in the changelog regarding systemless) and you can just flash it - but then I had a bootloop. So it might only be 2.65 beta that's systemless - but then again, the beta and stable have the same time reference in their filenames (20151226141550), and this beta is found in the experimental thread. When it's systemless I apparently shouldn't need to run any commands in terminal as it is automated? Then I'm reading about flashing 2.62-3 (don't know if it's just a simple flash or what) and then update (another moto user claimed it worked) to who knows what (update=simple flash on top - I'm not sure, I've been using a RAZR and a custom ROM with built in root). I stopped using SuperSU when it gave me bootloops on my RAZR - think around December last year.

I am looking to do a systemless root though. I think when I flashed it, it probably wasn't systemless. Sorry, I'm in that initial phase of getting up to speed and learning with a new device.

TIA!!!! --> As I read in the one supersu thread...
[SuperSU] angelle97:
Has anyone tried to root verizon s6 edge on marshmallow using this method?

I'm a Ninjuhkat. run. meow.
[SuperSU] grep_i:
At the end it doesn't matter which version you install as they are all systemless

stable, beta, experimental version greater than v2.56

If you don't know just stick with stable the safest option you have

As for the code to let it install systemless on your device use the following code, I borroughed it from other users on this forum.

echo SYSTEMLESS=true>>/data/.supersu

Then:

echo BINDSYSTEMXBIN=false>>/data/.supersu

Followed by the installation of whatever version of SuperSU greater than v2.56
[SuperSU] alireza_simkesh:
Does anyone know how I can update the SU binary?

I have installed SuperSU 2.65 on my rooted Galaxy Edge, but I am having problems with some apps which require root access. For instance, Gemini app manager and ES file explorer do not ask for root permissions (so I can Grant them root access).
[SuperSU] spainter:
Throw ES file explorer as far as you can. Try Solid explorer or Root Explorer. ES can't handle systemless root.
[SuperSU] Pkt_Lnt:
From the OP

and

http://xdaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66140836&postcount=5493
[SuperSU] alireza_simkesh:
I followed your second link and I do get a # sign, so it is an issue with compatibility mode.

I then entered the given command in Terminal Emulator in order to enable compatibility mode, and after than installed SuperSU.apk. But I do not see any compatibility mode options in its settings. Did I skip any instructions here?
[SuperSU] Pkt_Lnt:
I don't know, I did not type the solution, I just gave you the link to it. You might ask the person who offered the solution in the thread where they posted the solution.? The ES File Explorer question gets asked about every 10 posts over there.
[SuperSU] 84Odin:
[MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION],

I have so far not managed to buy me the Pro version of your SuperSu , Sorry . My question now is : I am at the moment on the Sixperience S7 V1.0 Port of Geiti94 . This Rome SuperSu Free V2.70 is installed . But now when I want to update to the Pro version , then my only SuperSu Pro version 2.65 is available in the Play Store . Can I still buy the pro version , without my version number is changed because the SuperSu Free V2.70 should indeed remain installed because there are probably problems with the 2.65 version , with my insatllierten Rome .
[SuperSU] spainter:
The version of the pro key happens to be the same as the stable version of SuperSu. It was upgraded from 2.05 to 2.65 just a short time ago but works for all versions of SuperSu. When you buy and install the key it will update all versions of SuperSu to pro. On my devices it shows Pro SuperSu 2.7.1 on the Nexus Devices and Pro SuperSu 2.6.5 on the others.
[SuperSU] Ibuprophen:
In Cm12.1 (which I have), I open up (un-hide) the developer options and set the root access to apps & adb.

This prevents the # and allows the SuperSU app to to it's thing.

Just a suggestion/thought...
[SuperSU] Xhemal1325:
is the 2.71 beta good, or i should go with 2.65 stable ? :)
[SuperSU] Badger50:
I've had zero troubles with 2.71 on stock and cm-13 roms.
[SuperSU] computersalat:
[MENTION=631273]Chainfire[/MENTION]

checksum files are missing for the downloadable zip ... is it possible to provide some ?

Thank you very much :)