Fix consensus check #6760
Merged
Fix consensus check #6760
+74
−9
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
| @@ -290,25 +294,43 @@ func (hsv *HeaderSigVerifier) VerifySignatureForHash(header data.HeaderHandler, | |||
| return multiSigVerifier.VerifyAggregatedSig(pubKeysSigners, hash, signature) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // VerifyHeaderWithProof checks if the proof on the header is correct | |||
| func (hsv *HeaderSigVerifier) VerifyHeaderWithProof(header data.HeaderHandler) error { | |||
| // VerifyHeaderWithPrevProof checks if the proof on the header is correct | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
update comment as well.. or maybe consider unexporting this method? it is only used internally now
| // VerifyHeaderWithProof checks if the proof on the header is correct | ||
| func (hsv *HeaderSigVerifier) VerifyHeaderWithProof(header data.HeaderHandler) error { | ||
| // VerifyHeaderWithPrevProof checks if the proof on the header is correct | ||
| func (hsv *HeaderSigVerifier) VerifyHeaderWithPrevProof(header data.HeaderHandler) error { | ||
| // first block for transition to equivalent proofs consensus does not have a previous proof |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this comment can be removed
| err := verifyPrevProofForHeaderIntegrity(header) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| prevProof := header.GetPreviousProof() | ||
| if common.IsEpochChangeBlockForFlagActivation(header, hsv.enableEpochsHandler, common.EquivalentMessagesFlag) { | ||
| return hsv.verifyHeaderProofAtTransition(header, prevProof) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this would ever be called, as this method, VerifyHeaderWithPrevProof, is called only if ShouldBlockHavePrevProof, but if block should have proof, it means it is not the epoch change block for flag activation, thus VerifySignature would go through L238-L250 for the epoch start block
sstanculeanu
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
ssd04
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
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.
Reasoning behind the pull request
Proposed changes
Testing procedure
Pre-requisites
Based on the Contributing Guidelines the PR author and the reviewers must check the following requirements are met:
featbranch created?featbranch merging, do all satellite projects have a proper tag insidego.mod?