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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat(protocol): proof verification aggregation #17938
feat(protocol): proof verification aggregation #17938
Changes from all commits
bec984a
c2f0fbf
ee481ea
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
not yet verified here??
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.
Technically true only but:
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.
Assumption indeed that all the proofs are verified correctly in some way afterwards.
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.
Since the current SGX prover doesn't support multiple blocks, can we ensure the length of
_ctx
and_tran
are both 1 for now so we can upgrade contracts ealier?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.
The inputs into the verification are still changed so a bit tricky. If length is 1 we could use the old verification path, but then this would be a special case and proof aggregation on a single proof would not be valid. Seems easier if aggregation is always used even if there's only a single proof, otherwise we need multiple verification paths.
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.
Is this necessary? I mean as oldInstance is always recovered from signature, why we need explicit list oldInstance here?
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.
We need to have it available in the aggregation proof, because that's the address we need to verify against for the first block proof. We need to get it from somewhere to be able to correctly verify that proof, because we don't have it available anymore in the SGX instance itself (could be many blocks ago, and we only store the latest key pair in SGX).