feat(tree): UpdateProof fixes #129
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
Important Review skippedReview was skipped as selected files did not have any reviewable changes. Files selected but had no reviewable changes (1)
You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe changes across multiple files primarily focus on refining the hashchain verification process and updating related methods. Key modifications include renaming the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
Outside diff range comments (5)
crates/nova/src/update.rs (2)
Line range hint
77-79: Consider addressing the TODO commentThere's a TODO comment indicating that the current implementation uses an inclusion proof of the node before the update, but it should create a new Merkle proof by hashing the new node. This might be an opportunity for further optimization or correctness improvement.
Would you like assistance in implementing this TODO? I can help draft the code for creating and verifying the new Merkle proof.
Line range hint
92-94: Improve error handling forupdate_proof.verify()The
verifymethod is called onupdate_proofwithout any specific error handling. Consider adding more detailed error handling to provide better diagnostics in case of verification failure.Consider replacing:
self.update_proof .verify() .map_err(|_| SynthesisError::Unsatisfiable)?;with:
self.update_proof .verify() .map_err(|e| { log::error!("UpdateProof verification failed: {:?}", e); SynthesisError::Unsatisfiable })?;This will log the specific error before converting it to a
SynthesisError, aiding in debugging if issues arise.crates/common/src/operation.rs (3)
Line range hint
87-96: Consider optimizingget_signature_bundlemethodThe
get_signature_bundlemethod currently clones the signature bundle. Consider returning a reference to avoid unnecessary cloning, similar to the optimization made inget_public_key.Here's a suggested implementation:
pub fn get_signature_bundle(&self) -> Option<&SignatureBundle> { match self { Operation::AddKey(args) | Operation::RevokeKey(args) => Some(&args.signature), Operation::CreateAccount(args) => None, // or create a static SignatureBundle if needed } }Note that this change would require adjusting the return type and potentially updating the callers of this method.
Line range hint
98-111: Review serialization approach ininsert_signaturemethodThe
insert_signaturemethod serializes the entire operation before signing. For large operations, this could be inefficient.Consider serializing only the essential parts of the operation that need to be signed, rather than the entire struct. This would require defining a canonical representation of the operation for signing purposes.
Example approach:
fn serialize_for_signing(&self) -> Result<Vec<u8>> { // Implement a custom serialization that includes only the necessary fields // This could be a subset of the full serialization } pub fn insert_signature(&mut self, signing_key: &SigningKey) -> Result<()> { let serialized = self.serialize_for_signing()?; let signature = signing_key.sign(&serialized); // ... rest of the method }
Line range hint
139-180: Enhance validation in thevalidatemethodThe current
validatemethod performs basic checks, but it could be more comprehensive.Consider adding the following enhancements:
- Validate the format and length of the
idfield.- Check if the
PublicKeyis in a valid format.- Verify the length and format of signatures.
- Implement the commented-out challenge validation for
CreateAccount.Example:
pub fn validate(&self) -> Result<()> { match &self { Operation::AddKey(args) | Operation::RevokeKey(args) => { validate_id(&args.id)?; validate_public_key(&args.value)?; validate_signature(&args.signature.signature)?; Ok(()) } Operation::CreateAccount(args) => { validate_id(&args.id)?; validate_public_key(&args.value)?; validate_signature(&args.signature)?; validate_challenge(&args.challenge)?; Ok(()) } } } fn validate_id(id: &str) -> Result<()> { // Implement id validation logic } fn validate_public_key(key: &PublicKey) -> Result<()> { // Implement public key validation logic } fn validate_signature(signature: &[u8]) -> Result<()> { // Implement signature validation logic } fn validate_challenge(challenge: &ServiceChallengeInput) -> Result<()> { // Implement challenge validation logic }
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Files selected for processing (5)
- crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (2 hunks)
- crates/common/src/operation.rs (1 hunks)
- crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (3 hunks)
- crates/common/src/tree.rs (6 hunks)
- crates/nova/src/update.rs (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (13)
crates/nova/src/update.rs (2)
Line range hint
1-104: Summary of review
- The main change (line 83) aligns with the PR objectives of optimizing the UpdateProof function.
- There's a TODO comment that might be worth addressing for further optimization or correctness.
- Error handling for the
update_proof.verify()call could be improved.Overall, the changes look good and align with the PR objectives. The suggested improvements are not blocking issues but could enhance the code quality and maintainability.
83-83: LGTM! Verify consistency across the codebase.The change from
self.update_proof.proof.proofs()[0]toself.update_proof.update_proof.proofs()[0]appears to be in line with the PR objectives of modifying the UpdateProof function for performance improvements. This suggests a restructuring of theUpdateProofstruct.To ensure consistency across the codebase, please run the following script:
This will help identify if all instances have been updated consistently and if there are any other occurrences of the new pattern.
Verification successful
Consistency Verified Across Codebase.
The change from
self.update_proof.proof.proofs()[0]toself.update_proof.update_proof.proofs()[0]has been consistently applied. The old access pattern.proof.proofs()is no longer present, and the new pattern exists only incrates/nova/src/update.rsat line 83 as intended.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Check for any remaining instances of `.proof.proofs()` and new instances of `.update_proof.proofs()`. echo "Checking for old access pattern:" rg --type rust 'update_proof\.proof\.proofs\(\)' echo "Checking for new access pattern:" rg --type rust 'update_proof\.update_proof\.proofs\(\)'Length of output: 356
crates/common/src/operation.rs (2)
Line range hint
1-214: Summary of review for crates/common/src/operation.rsThe main change to
get_public_keyis a good optimization that aligns with the PR's performance improvement goals. However, the changes in this file seem to focus more on memory efficiency than on the specific UpdateProof function mentioned in the PR summary.Additional suggestions have been made to further optimize the code:
- Optimize the
get_signature_bundlemethod to avoid cloning.- Review the serialization approach in the
insert_signaturemethod for potential performance improvements.- Enhance the validation logic in the
validatemethod for more comprehensive checks.These suggestions, if implemented, could contribute to the overall performance improvements targeted by this PR.
80-84: Approve the change with a suggestion for further verificationThe modification to
get_public_keymethod is a good optimization. By returning a reference instead of cloning thePublicKey, it improves performance and memory efficiency.However, this change modifies the method's API, which might affect other parts of the codebase. Please run the following script to verify that all usages of
get_public_keyhave been updated accordingly:Review the output to ensure all usages are compatible with the new return type.
Verification successful
Verification of
get_public_keyusage is successfulNo incompatible usages of
get_public_keyfound in the codebase. All instances correctly handle the returned reference.Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Description: Find all usages of get_public_key and verify they handle the new return type correctly # Search for get_public_key usages rg --type rust "\.get_public_key\(\)" -C 3 # Look for potential issues with ownership or borrowing related to get_public_key rg --type rust "let .+ = .+\.get_public_key\(\)" -C 3Length of output: 1114
crates/common/src/test_utils.rs (2)
Line range hint
195-214: Approved addition ofcreate_mock_hashchainfunctionThe
create_mock_hashchainfunction is a valuable addition that supports the changes made increate_random_insert. It provides a way to create a hashchain with a valid initial state, using the provided signing key to sign the CreateAccount operation.This implementation aligns well with the PR objectives by enabling the creation of more realistic test data, which is crucial for thorough testing of the UpdateProof functionality.
The function is well-structured and correctly implements the creation of a mock hashchain. It's a good addition to the test utilities.
Line range hint
1-248: Overall assessment: Changes align well with PR objectivesThe modifications to this file significantly enhance the test utilities to support the new UpdateProof functionality. Key improvements include:
- Consistent use of the last entry of the hashchain for updates, aligning with the PR's performance optimization goals.
- Introduction of more realistic test data through the use of actual signing keys and mock hashchains.
- Enhanced support for testing the UpdateProof functionality with more comprehensive test scenarios.
These changes collectively contribute to a more robust testing environment, which is crucial for validating the reported performance improvements in the UpdateProof function.
While the changes are generally well-implemented, consider addressing the minor suggestions for error handling and code structure in a follow-up commit to further improve the robustness and maintainability of the test utilities.
crates/common/src/hashchain.rs (1)
136-140: LGTM!Returning a reference to
PublicKeyinget_key_at_indexefficiently avoids unnecessary cloning.crates/common/src/tree.rs (6)
14-14: ImportHashchainEntryto support new functionality.The addition of
HashchainEntryto the import statement ensures that the struct is available for use in the updated methods.
208-208: Added verification of the last hashchain entry inInsertProof::verify.Including
self.value.verify_last_entry()?;enhances the security by ensuring that the last entry in the hashchain is valid before proceeding.
220-226: UpdatedUpdateProofstruct with necessary fields for verification.Adding
old_value,new_entry,inclusion_proof, andupdate_proofto theUpdateProofstruct provides all the required data to perform a comprehensive verification of updates to the hashchain.
231-243: Verification logic inUpdateProof::verifyis correctly implemented.The method properly verifies the existence of the old value, appends the new entry, validates the last entry of the updated hashchain, and ensures that the update proof corresponds to the new state.
340-343: Operation processing updated to utilizeHashchainEntry.The generation of a new
HashchainEntryusingperform_operationand passing it to theupdatemethod aligns with the new update logic and improves performance by focusing on the last entry.
Line range hint
430-446:updatemethod correctly updates the hashchain and tree structure.The implementation correctly serializes the new hashchain, updates the tree with the new value, and constructs the
UpdateProofwith all necessary components, ensuring the integrity of the update process.
This PR reduces sp1 cycle count by ~10x by only validating the last signature in the hashchain.
To do this, we need to add some extra validation checks inside UpdateProof so that we can make the safe assumption that the existing value has been validated in a previous epoch.
New cycle counts:
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Chores