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
fix: verifier overflow checks #62
Conversation
00e40c3
to
5465457
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.
Looks good
5465457
to
98ca0c6
Compare
98ca0c6
to
2fcb866
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.
New insights from the tari project audit:
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.
ACK
985ef15
to
b7380c6
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.
Just a question about more potential overflows
b7380c6
to
69d2872
Compare
Checks for overflows in the range verifier.
Since type exceptions for the lint mentioned in #60 don't seem to work with the Ristretto types, this needs to either be checked manually or by temporarily enabling that lint and ignoring the deluge of Ristretto false positives (operations on those types are not subject to overflow/underflow).
Also does minor cleanup by moving some operations to iterators.
Closes #60.