-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
backport: Merge bitcoin#19237,19378,18422 #5143
Conversation
0a2b7b7
to
50e3698
Compare
a13864b
to
8ac20b3
Compare
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
ff89cad
to
1d104d4
Compare
afbd704
to
ef47ed9
Compare
56d2eb7
to
f9eb5df
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK
Hello @PastaPastaPasta , please review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK
37ae687 Add tests for CPubKey serialization/unserialization (Elichai Turkel) 9b8907f Check size after Unserializing CPubKey (Elichai Turkel) Pull request description: Found by practicalswift, closes bitcoin#19235 Currently all the public API(except the pointer-like API) in CPubKey that sets/constructs a pubkey goes through `CPubKey::Set` which checks if that the length and size match and if not invalidates the key. This adds the same check to `CPubKey::Unserialize`, sadly I don't see an easy way to just push this to the existing checks in `CPubKey::Set` but it's only a simple condition. The problem with not invalidating is that if you write a pubkey like: `{0x02,0x00}` it will think the actual length is 33(because of `size()`) and will access uninitialized memory if you call any of the functions on CPubKey. ACKs for top commit: practicalswift: re-ACK 37ae687 jonatack: Code review re-ACK 37ae687 per `git diff eab8ee3 37ae687` only change since last review at eab8ee3 is passing the `pubkey` param by reference to const instead of by value in `src/test/key_tests.cpp::CmpSerializationPubkey` MarcoFalke: ACK 37ae687 Tree-SHA512: 30173755555dfc76d6263fb6a59f41be36049ffae7b4e1b92b922d668f5e5e2331f7374d5fa10d5d59fc53020d2966156905ffcfa8b8129c1f6d0ca062174ff1
…ed_transactions 1307686 refactor: Use Mutex type for g_cs_recent_confirmed_transactions (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: No need the `RecursiveMutex` type for the `g_cs_recent_confirmed_transactions`. Related to bitcoin#19303. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: ACK 1307686 vasild: ACK 1307686 Tree-SHA512: 67f1be10c80ec18d0f80b9f5036e5a20986314da9b9364ef4e193ad1d9f3f4c8e4c2e16253ca79d649ff602d5b8c2aff58d7dd1085841afb760479a4875cffbe
…valScript code to EvalChecksig 14e8cf9 [consensus] MOVEONLY: Move single-sig checking EvalScript code to EvalChecksig (Pieter Wuille) Pull request description: This is another small refactor pulled out of the Schnorr/Taproot PR bitcoin#17977. This is in preparation for adding different signature verification rules, specifically tapscript (BIP 342), which interprets opcode 0xac and 0xad as Schnorr signature verifications. ACKs for top commit: sipa: ACK 14e8cf9, verified move-only. MarcoFalke: ACK 14e8cf9, reviewed with "git show 14e8cf9 --color-moved=dimmed-zebra --color-moved-ws=ignore-all-space -W" 👆 fjahr: Code-review ACK 14e8cf9, verified that it's move-only. instagibbs: code review ACK bitcoin@14e8cf9, verified move-only theStack: Code-Review ACK bitcoin@14e8cf9 jonatack: ACK 14e8cf9 Tree-SHA512: af2efce9ae39d5ec01db5b9ef0ff383fe252ef5f33b3483927308ae17d91a619266cb45951f32ea1ce54807a4c0f052bcdefb47e244465d3a726393221c227b1
28313eb
to
a8c7d72
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
utACK for merging via merge commit
No description provided.