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

Fix Falcon bug #305

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 21, 2024
Merged

Fix Falcon bug #305

merged 2 commits into from
Apr 21, 2024

Conversation

Al-Kindi-0
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe your changes

This addresses the raised in 0xPolygonMiden/miden-base#616
The problem was due to the order of the secret key basis.

Checklist before requesting a review

  • Repo forked and branch created from next according to naming convention.
  • Commit messages and codestyle follow conventions.
  • Relevant issues are linked in the PR description.
  • Tests added for new functionality.
  • Documentation/comments updated according to changes.

@Al-Kindi-0 Al-Kindi-0 requested a review from bobbinth April 20, 2024 16:15
Copy link

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
No data about Duplication

See analysis details on SonarCloud

Copy link
Contributor

@bobbinth bobbinth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good! Thank you!

Question: do you think this would have been caught if we had #293 implemented?

@bobbinth bobbinth merged commit 14e059b into next Apr 21, 2024
11 checks passed
@bobbinth bobbinth deleted the al-fix-falcon-bug branch April 21, 2024 07:48
@Al-Kindi-0
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Question: do you think this would have been caught if we had #293 implemented?

It might have been discovered in the process of implementing #293 . The problem was basically just the order and sign of the basis element of the secret key. I think this was messed up when we were reverting the key recovery mode changes.
In any case, I think having #293 implemented will be good to get more confidence in the implementation. I got some ideas for how to do this while debuging the current issue, I will add them to #293 for discussion soon.

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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants