-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 302
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
post-audit circuit fixes part 2 #2925
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The only other place we're constructing `AmountVar` without using `AllocVar` is here, where we should construct the `AmountVar` from the `PenaltyVar`, bearing in mind that the penalty has already been bit constrained to 64 bits, and the amount needs to be bit constrained to a greater value.
Constraints are: a * r + Y = X Y < r a <= 4
redshiftzero
temporarily deployed
to
smoke-test
August 14, 2023 15:05 — with
GitHub Actions
Inactive
redshiftzero
commented
Aug 14, 2023
| Undelegate claim | 14,776 | 722ms | ||
| Swap | 25,700 | 1.21s | ||
| SwapClaim | 37,061 | 1.83s | ||
| Nullifier derivation | 394 | 59ms |
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.
At a high level, why did these circuit costs change?
- Spend: Slight increase
- Due to adding missing constraints around the handling of the IVK
- Output: Significant decrease
- Due to optimization of the balance commitment calculation
- Delegator vote: Slight increase
- Due to adding missing constraints around the handling of the IVK (same issue as spend)
- Undelegate claim: Significant decrease
- Due both to optimization of the balance commitment calculation and
AmountVar
division
- Due both to optimization of the balance commitment calculation and
- Swap: Significant decrease
- Due to optimization of the balance commitment calculation
- Swap claim: Slight decrease
- Due to optimization of the
U128x128Var
computations used in the pro rata batch output calculation
- Due to optimization of the
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Followup fixes to the circuits from the ZKS audit
Note that two of the issues found in the ZKS audit in the fixed-point multiplication and addition were fixed already as part of #2911