[Core Add] Add support to Ed25519 #3507
Conversation
| /// <param name="publicKey">The public key to be used.</param> | ||
| /// <returns><see langword="true"/> if the signature is valid; otherwise, <see langword="false"/>.</returns> | ||
| [ContractMethod(Hardfork.HF_Echidna, CpuFee = 1 << 15)] | ||
| public static bool VerifyWithEd25519(byte[] message, byte[] signature, byte[] publicKey) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Message, pubkey, signature? As in VerifyWithEcdsa
sure |
… add fails ut and cryptolib ut.
# Conflicts: # src/Neo/Cryptography/Ed25519.cs # src/Neo/SmartContract/Native/CryptoLib.cs # tests/Neo.UnitTests/Cryptography/UT_Ed25519.cs
| verifier.BlockUpdate(message, 0, message.Length); | ||
| return verifier.VerifySignature(signature); | ||
| } | ||
| catch (Exception) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I was talking only about ArgumentException, e.g. only about input data of invalid length and some other ArgumentException thrown by this part of code. However, catching any exception is a valid solution as far.
@roman-khimov, what do you think about cases when we should return true/false or FAULT VM?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can be both ways, but we need to know all of the exceptions that can happen in this block. Some are likely OK to be converted to false result (invalid signature), some may not (verifier constructor failure?). I'd expect some symmetry to ECDSA verification function. Like what happens if the key is wrong?
Description
This pr adds support to Ed25519 as is suggested in #3506
Tested with test vectors from RFC 8032 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8032)
Fixes # #3506
Type of change
How Has This Been Tested?
Test Configuration:
Checklist: