Adds a restrictions ID check into handshake protocols #3306
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
Co-authored-by: vicsn <victor.s.nicolaas@protonmail.com> Signed-off-by: Howard Wu <9260812+howardwu@users.noreply.github.com>
gluax
reviewed
Jun 11, 2024
Comment on lines
+48
to
+49
| let restrictions_id = Field::zero(); // Provers may bypass restrictions, since they do not validate transactions. | ||
| self.router.handshake(peer_addr, stream, conn_side, genesis_header, restrictions_id).await?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like the handshake method should take an option, then no? Why send extra data if it's unnecessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree it would have been cleaner, if the PR was not merged yet or we were not in a crunch, I would have pushed the change. Thx for the suggestion
Comment on lines
+60
to
+63
| fn latest_restrictions_id(&self) -> Field<N> { | ||
| Field::zero() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I feel like it should be considered here as well. Rather than return useless unused data this should be an Option and prover's should return None
Meshiest
approved these changes
Jun 11, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Motivation
This PR introduces a restrictions ID check into the handshake protocols.
When two nodes are handshaking on the Router or Gateway level, it is expected that they transmit in their ChallengeResponse messages a copy of their current restrictions ID to their peer, who subsequently checks and enforces that the restrictions ID matches what they expect from their node.
As such, going forward, the following node types are responsible to adhere to the same restrictions list:
Of note, as provers do not validate transitions or transactions, they do not carry ledger state and thus are not subject to the restrictions list. Note that it is critical for clients to also perform the same validation as the validators because the validator rely upon core clients to assist with validation and propagation of transactions to the validators' memory pools.
This design is defined by the foundation to require all handshake connections to enforce the current restrictions ID to be correct and matching at the time of connection; however, it doesn't require consensus to enforce a matching restrictions ID at the time of use.
This PR builds on top of AleoNet/snarkVM#2487 in snarkVM, which introduces the concept of the restrictions list for programs, functions, and arguments.
Related PRs
Reviewed here: ProvableHQ#14
CI passed