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

feat: implement g1 sign api #25

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025
Merged

Conversation

shrimalmadhur
Copy link
Collaborator

@shrimalmadhur shrimalmadhur commented Jan 8, 2025

  • Implement the g1 sign endpoint
  • Updating signature to raw bytes since it is using the underlying gnark lib

@shrimalmadhur shrimalmadhur requested a review from a team January 14, 2025 00:44
pubKeyHex := common.Trim0x(req.GetPublicKeyG1())
password := req.GetPassword()

if _, ok := s.keyCache[pubKeyHex]; !ok {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this isn't thread safe the way this cache is updated and checked, I would wrap the get/set in a mutex

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree with you George. Risk is really small here since the store is local and doesn't have eventual consistency but locking is needed for correctness, with this approach.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The reason this doesn't necessarily need to be thread safe is because the value of the key will never be different. So practically there's no race condition on the value of the key. Give the only downside it has is to load from disk again which is a decent trade off to avoid mutex overhead. Let me know if that makes sense.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see. If the key isn't mutable then race condition concern is moot.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That is correct

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am pretty sure this could end up panicing even with different keys, since hash map might need to grow when adding a new key. There is a sync.map which is thread safe.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

here is a sample in a go playground: https://go.dev/play/p/mRFKiEikPuc

fatal error: concurrent map writes

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this makes sense - thanks for pointing that out. updated

internal/services/signing/signing.go Show resolved Hide resolved
pubKeyHex := common.Trim0x(req.GetPublicKeyG1())
password := req.GetPassword()

if _, ok := s.keyCache[pubKeyHex]; !ok {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Agree with you George. Risk is really small here since the store is local and doesn't have eventual consistency but locking is needed for correctness, with this approach.

bdchatham
bdchatham previously approved these changes Jan 14, 2025
bdchatham
bdchatham previously approved these changes Jan 14, 2025
@shrimalmadhur shrimalmadhur merged commit 6d0c13b into master Jan 14, 2025
3 checks passed
@shrimalmadhur shrimalmadhur deleted the madhur/implement-g1-sign-api branch January 14, 2025 21:26
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.

3 participants