Parameters validation for the FV scheme #3870
Conversation
rav1kantsingh
added
the
Type: New Feature ➕
| len(params.coeff_modulus) > COEFF_MOD_COUNT_MAX | ||
| or len(params.coeff_modulus) < COEFF_MOD_COUNT_MIN | ||
| ): | ||
| raise RuntimeError("Invalid coefficient modulus counts") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you specify in the error message the range of the coeffecients allowed and how many was passed?
| if params.coeff_modulus[i] >> COEFF_MOD_BIT_COUNT_MAX or not ( | ||
| params.coeff_modulus[i] >> (COEFF_MOD_BIT_COUNT_MIN - 1) | ||
| ): | ||
| raise RuntimeError("Invalid coefficient modulus values") |
| # Compute the product of all coeff moduli | ||
| total_coeff_modulus = reduce(lambda x, y: x * y, params.coeff_modulus) | ||
| # total_coeff_modulus_bit_count = get_significant_count(total_coeff_modulus) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we also verify that the total_coeff_modulus is good for our n-bit security level?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have added the code required for the security level checking. but It is currently commented with TODO because I would need to work on how to ask for the security level and if passed then it can be checked otherwise scheme will work without standard security.
|
|
||
| # Check for the range of coefficient modulus primes. | ||
| for i in range(len(params.coeff_modulus)): | ||
| if params.coeff_modulus[i] >> COEFF_MOD_BIT_COUNT_MAX or not ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe
params.coeff_modulus[i] > 2**COEFF_MOD_BIT_COUNT_MAX
Is clearer? I am always nervous about operator precedence. :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But, bitwise operators will be much better for performance than exponentiation.
| # Check all coeff moduli are relatively prime to plain_modulus | ||
| for i in range(len(params.coeff_modulus)): | ||
| for j in range(i): | ||
| if math.gcd(params.coeff_modulus[i], params.plain_modulus) > 1: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need the j loop here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By mistake, I copied the above loop and forget to remove the j loop😅
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3870 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.07% 94.90% -0.18%
==========================================
Files 186 199 +13
Lines 18868 20158 +1290
==========================================
+ Hits 17939 19131 +1192
- Misses 929 1027 +98
|
rav1kantsingh
changed the title
| ): | ||
| raise RuntimeError( | ||
| f"Invalid coefficient modulus count {len(params.coeff_modulus)}, " | ||
| + "should be in range [1, 62]" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better to use the variables directly here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[1, 62], in case those values change
| ): | ||
| raise RuntimeError( | ||
| f"Invalid coefficient modulus values {params.coeff_modulus[i]}, " | ||
| + "should be in smaller than 60 bit number." |
Description
closes #3792
Checks basic properties that the parameters should have while setting up, and tests the generated prime nos if those are correct.
Affected Dependencies
None
How has this been tested?
This code does not need to have dedicated tests and it is verified by already present tests.
Checklist