CertVerifier updates #1207
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -167,7 +167,8 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| BlobInclusionInfo memory blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| SecurityThresholds memory securityThresholds, | ||
| bytes memory requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| bytes memory signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) internal view { | ||
| require( | ||
| Merkle.verifyInclusionKeccak( | ||
|
|
@@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| bytes32 signatoryRecordHash | ||
| ) = signatureVerifier.checkSignatures( | ||
| EigenDAHasher.hashBatchHeaderV2(batchHeader), | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers, | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. what was the issue exactly when quorumNumbers of the blob is strict subset of those in the batch? Guessing the There was a problem hiding this comment. Is it right that signedQuorumNumber is based on quorum's from a batch, which contains all quorum for all blobs. There was a problem hiding this comment. would be good to put a comment There was a problem hiding this comment. Right now yes, but doesn't necessarily have to be that way. sigma and this sigmaQuorumNumbers could be a subset of the actual batch signers, as long as it contains the quorums that the blob requested. see #1207 (comment) |
||
| batchHeader.referenceBlockNumber, | ||
| nonSignerStakesAndSignature | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
@@ -201,7 +202,7 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
|
|
||
| uint256 confirmedQuorumsBitmap; | ||
|
|
||
| for (uint i = 0; i < signedQuorumNumbers.length; i++) { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. think we still only want to check the ones in the blobHeader here? Since those are the only quorums that the requester paid for and cares about |
||
| require( | ||
| quorumStakeTotals.signedStakeForQuorum[i] * THRESHOLD_DENOMINATOR >= | ||
| quorumStakeTotals.totalStakeForQuorum[i] * securityThresholds.confirmationThreshold, | ||
|
|
@@ -210,16 +211,24 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
|
|
||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap = BitmapUtils.setBit( | ||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap, | ||
| uint8(signedQuorumNumbers[i]) | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| require( | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Can you add a comment above this saying something like: |
||
| BitmapUtils.isSubsetOf( | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.quorumNumbers), | ||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap | ||
| ), | ||
| "EigenDACertVerificationUtils._verifyDACertV2ForQuorums: blob quorums are not a subset of the confirmed quorums" | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. The error message would be a lot more informative if it contained the actual quorum numbers that have not been signed. Is it possible to check each quorum one by one instead of checking the subset and having a generic error msg? |
||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| require( | ||
| BitmapUtils.isSubsetOf( | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(requiredQuorumNumbers), | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.quorumNumbers) | ||
| ), | ||
| "EigenDACertVerificationUtils._verifyDACertV2ForQuorums: required quorums are not a subset of the blob quorums" | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -232,7 +241,8 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| BlobInclusionInfo memory _blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory _nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| SecurityThresholds memory _securityThresholds, | ||
| bytes memory _requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| bytes memory _signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) external view { | ||
| EigenDACertVerificationUtils._verifyDACertV2ForQuorums( | ||
| _eigenDAThresholdRegistry, | ||
|
|
@@ -242,7 +252,8 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| _blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| _nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| _securityThresholds, | ||
| _requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| _signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -254,7 +265,8 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| BlobInclusionInfo memory blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| SecurityThresholds[] memory securityThresholds, | ||
| bytes memory requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| bytes memory signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) internal view { | ||
| require( | ||
| securityThresholds.length == blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.quorumNumbers.length, | ||
|
|
@@ -276,7 +288,7 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| bytes32 signatoryRecordHash | ||
| ) = signatureVerifier.checkSignatures( | ||
| EigenDAHasher.hashBatchHeaderV2(batchHeader), | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers, | ||
| batchHeader.referenceBlockNumber, | ||
| nonSignerStakesAndSignature | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
@@ -289,7 +301,7 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| uint256 confirmedQuorumsBitmap; | ||
| VersionedBlobParams memory blobParams = eigenDAThresholdRegistry.getBlobParams(blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.version); | ||
|
|
||
| for (uint i = 0; i < signedQuorumNumbers.length; i++) { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. same comment as above. Why do we have this same code duplicated in both functions btw? Can we refactor into an internal function shared by both? Otherwise someone might update one and forget to update the other one. There was a problem hiding this comment. Also do we still need the function |
||
| _verifyDACertSecurityParams( | ||
| blobParams, | ||
| securityThresholds[i] | ||
|
|
@@ -303,16 +315,24 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
|
|
||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap = BitmapUtils.setBit( | ||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap, | ||
| uint8(signedQuorumNumbers[i]) | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| require( | ||
| BitmapUtils.isSubsetOf( | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.quorumNumbers), | ||
| confirmedQuorumsBitmap | ||
| ), | ||
| "EigenDACertVerificationUtils._verifyDACertV2ForQuorums: blob quorums are not a subset of the confirmed quorums" | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| require( | ||
| BitmapUtils.isSubsetOf( | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(requiredQuorumNumbers), | ||
| BitmapUtils.orderedBytesArrayToBitmap(blobInclusionInfo.blobCertificate.blobHeader.quorumNumbers) | ||
| ), | ||
| "EigenDACertVerificationUtils._verifyDACertV2ForQuorums: required quorums are not a subset of the blob quorums" | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -327,7 +347,10 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| SecurityThresholds memory securityThresholds, | ||
| bytes memory requiredQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) internal view { | ||
| ( | ||
| NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| bytes memory signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) = _getNonSignerStakesAndSignature( | ||
| operatorStateRetriever, | ||
| registryCoordinator, | ||
| signedBatch | ||
|
|
@@ -341,7 +364,8 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| securityThresholds, | ||
| requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -356,7 +380,10 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| SecurityThresholds[] memory securityThresholds, | ||
| bytes memory requiredQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) internal view { | ||
| ( | ||
| NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| bytes memory signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ) = _getNonSignerStakesAndSignature( | ||
| operatorStateRetriever, | ||
| registryCoordinator, | ||
| signedBatch | ||
|
|
@@ -370,29 +397,29 @@ library EigenDACertVerificationUtils { | |
| blobInclusionInfo, | ||
| nonSignerStakesAndSignature, | ||
| securityThresholds, | ||
| requiredQuorumNumbers, | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| function _getNonSignerStakesAndSignature( | ||
| OperatorStateRetriever operatorStateRetriever, | ||
| IRegistryCoordinator registryCoordinator, | ||
| SignedBatch memory signedBatch | ||
| ) internal view returns (NonSignerStakesAndSignature memory nonSignerStakesAndSignature, bytes memory signedQuorumNumbers) { | ||
| bytes32[] memory nonSignerOperatorIds = new bytes32[](signedBatch.attestation.nonSignerPubkeys.length); | ||
| for (uint i = 0; i < signedBatch.attestation.nonSignerPubkeys.length; ++i) { | ||
| nonSignerOperatorIds[i] = BN254.hashG1Point(signedBatch.attestation.nonSignerPubkeys[i]); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| for (uint i = 0; i < signedBatch.attestation.quorumNumbers.length; ++i) { | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers = abi.encodePacked(signedQuorumNumbers, uint8(signedBatch.attestation.quorumNumbers[i])); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| OperatorStateRetriever.CheckSignaturesIndices memory checkSignaturesIndices = operatorStateRetriever.getCheckSignaturesIndices( | ||
| registryCoordinator, | ||
| signedBatch.batchHeader.referenceBlockNumber, | ||
| signedQuorumNumbers, | ||
| nonSignerOperatorIds | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
intention is to let proxy to set those value for now, and later pulled from rollup config?
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 like it is not the case, the signedQuorumNumbers is actually the all quorum for all blobs a batch, I think it makes sense.
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.
That's what it currently is, but it doesn't NEED to be. As we discussed with Robert the GetBlobStatus endpoint could eventually be optimized to return a different signature for each blob request. I vote to rename
signedQuorumNumberstosigmaQuorumNumbersso that the sigma name matches the sigma inside the NonSignerStakesAndSignature (sigma = signature)