Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Preconditions of fe_equal_var are weaker than documented #946

Closed
real-or-random opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1062
Closed

Preconditions of fe_equal_var are weaker than documented #946

real-or-random opened this issue May 14, 2021 · 1 comment · Fixed by #1062

Comments

@real-or-random
Copy link
Contributor

From IRC:

<roconnor> The documentation for secp256k1_fe_equal_var suggest both inputs have to have magnitude 1; however only the first input needs to have magnitude 1.
<roconnor> thus this call to fe_normalize_weak could be eliminated.
<roconnor> But it is so very not critical, I'm not sure it is even worth PRing.
<real_or_random> roconnor: same thing happens in secp256k1_gej_eq_x_var which is used in ECDSA verification. but ok, the speedup is still negligible
<real_or_random> but I believe it's worth a PR (or an issue) because it would improve the internal docs

@roconnor-blockstream
Copy link
Contributor

roconnor-blockstream commented May 15, 2021

secp256k1_fe_normalize_weak(&x3);
is the call to fe_normalize_weak I had in mind, but @real-or-random has another instance somewhere else.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants