It’s worth noting that this app won’t be compatible with future per-profile network namespaces which is a planned feature for GrapheneOS, but it’s hard to implement. We could allow toggling it off per-profile though.
Hope this happens as it is a useful app. Although toggling off “allow running in background” also seems to disable the app when i don’t want to use it.
That’s correct for the profile that you are sharing from.
When sharing something from a profile, a server will be started within it, listening to a local TCP port. If the profile is configured to be put to rest when switching away from it, the server will be stopped as well and the shared data can no longer be accessed.
I was considering to circumvent this by having a “central” server on the device only within a single profile that will never be put to rest, like the Owner profile. But solutions such as this make the setup-process harder and I really wanted it to be as simple as possible.
To me, this sounds like it could be a useful feature, if you ever decided to make a work around, as then I could use the app without toggling on “allow running in background”.
Maybe its a bit of a niche case but since, I re-use the same VPN config for multiple profiles, sometimes this toggle being on causes issues.
Not quite as convenient, but you could achieve the same thing by manually ending the session (instead of having it automatically end on-switch) of users when you’re finished with them and when you’re also no longer sharing anything from them.
(Currently only possible on GrapheneOS in the Power-Off dialogue where you have an End-Session button in addition to Shutdown and Restart)
The app sounds as an interesting addition for my GrapheneOS pixel 9.
I’m curious if anybody already did try this new app-tool InterProfileSharing, which is now also available at the Accrescent App Store?
Or if anybody can say if it would be secure to use on GrapheneOS, due to some rights.
it works as expected but will not work in the future with GOS as discussed above in the thread. I think @patrickd has some sort of plan for when that day comes to make it work again though.
@LoSee21 I added justifications for each permission it requests on the GitHub page
@Parish2555 I’d not call it a plan - It depends on how exactly the separation of profile networks will be implemented. Maybe exception will be configurable. Maybe there’ll be a new permission. Maybe it’ll just require more setup steps. We’ll see!