feat: Add signature_verification_result to schnorr stdlib#173
Merged
Conversation
phated
requested review from
charlielye,
codygunton,
dbanks12,
kevaundray and
zac-williamson
phated
changed the title
codygunton
suggested changes
Feb 27, 2023
phated
force-pushed
the
phated/noir-needs-4
branch
from
4e06695 to
a98abe2
Compare
zac-williamson
previously requested changes
Feb 27, 2023
zac-williamson
left a comment
zac-williamson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can see how it would be useful to have a verification method that does not assert but instead returns a boolean. It gives more flexibility to developers and makes it easier to evaluate branching paths where one wishes to conditionally verify a signature.
We have a lot of tests and circuit code that relies on the signature verification algorithm to produce unsatisfiable constraints if the signature is invalid.
I think the fastest path forward is to create a new independent method that returns a bool_t, which does not interfere with existing tests.
codygunton
force-pushed
the
phated/noir-needs-4
branch
from
a98abe2 to
cd14941
Compare
|
Rebased and resolved conflicts with |
phated
changed the title
signature_verification_result to schnorr stdlib
codygunton
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2023
|
@zac-williamson looks good? Merging is blocked until you approve 😇 |
codygunton
dismissed
zac-williamson’s stale review
Zac is with me now and he say it's ok.
…without changed. So we need verify_signature to return a boolean indicating whether the signature was valid or not. It should in fact return a bool_ct.
codygunton
force-pushed
the
phated/noir-needs-4
branch
from
ffa0396 to
6f3830f
Compare
|
^ rebase |
ludamad
pushed a commit
to AztecProtocol/aztec-packages
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 22, 2023
…tocol/barretenberg#173) * Add more flexible Schnorr verification methods --------- Co-authored-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: codygunton <codygunton@gmail.com>
ludamad
pushed a commit
to AztecProtocol/aztec-packages
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2023
…tocol/barretenberg#173) * Add more flexible Schnorr verification methods --------- Co-authored-by: kevaundray <kevtheappdev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: codygunton <codygunton@gmail.com>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Description
Noir needs
verify_signaturein the schnorr stdlib to return abool_tindicating whether the signature was valid or not.Currently a draft because I tried to update @kevaundray's code to add a constraint but I have no idea if I did it correctly.
Checklist:
/markdown/specshave been updated.@briefdescribing the intended functionality.