Eip6110 queue deposit requests #14430
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -55,12 +55,26 @@ func BatchVerifyDepositsSignatures(ctx context.Context, deposits []*ethpb.Deposi | |
| return false, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if err := verifyDepositDataWithDomain(ctx, deposits, domain); err != nil { | ||
| log.WithError(err).Debug("Failed to batch verify deposits signatures, will try individual verify") | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I see why this was confusing before, and what you've done here is a welcome improvement. Thanks There was a problem hiding this comment. #14526 now as part of this pr |
||
| return false, nil | ||
| } | ||
| return true, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // BatchVerifyPendingDepositsSignatures batch verifies pending deposit signatures. | ||
| func BatchVerifyPendingDepositsSignatures(ctx context.Context, deposits []*ethpb.PendingDeposit) (bool, error) { | ||
| var err error | ||
| domain, err := signing.ComputeDomain(params.BeaconConfig().DomainDeposit, nil, nil) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return false, err | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if err := verifyPendingDepositDataWithDomain(ctx, deposits, domain); err != nil { | ||
| log.WithError(err).Debug("Failed to batch verify deposits signatures, will try individual verify") | ||
| return false, nil | ||
| } | ||
| return true, nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // IsValidDepositSignature returns whether deposit_data is valid | ||
|
|
@@ -159,3 +173,44 @@ func verifyDepositDataWithDomain(ctx context.Context, deps []*ethpb.Deposit, dom | |
| } | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func verifyPendingDepositDataWithDomain(ctx context.Context, deps []*ethpb.PendingDeposit, domain []byte) error { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. In general, all of these may benefit from unit tests, but I’ll leave that decision to you:
There was a problem hiding this comment. Added one for batch ProcessNewPendingDeposits, can add more There was a problem hiding this comment. added more tests |
||
| if len(deps) == 0 { | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
| pks := make([]bls.PublicKey, len(deps)) | ||
| sigs := make([][]byte, len(deps)) | ||
| msgs := make([][32]byte, len(deps)) | ||
| for i, dep := range deps { | ||
| if ctx.Err() != nil { | ||
| return ctx.Err() | ||
| } | ||
| if dep == nil { | ||
| return errors.New("nil deposit") | ||
| } | ||
| dpk, err := bls.PublicKeyFromBytes(dep.PublicKey) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| pks[i] = dpk | ||
| sigs[i] = dep.Signature | ||
| depositMessage := ðpb.DepositMessage{ | ||
| PublicKey: dep.PublicKey, | ||
| WithdrawalCredentials: dep.WithdrawalCredentials, | ||
| Amount: dep.Amount, | ||
| } | ||
| sr, err := signing.ComputeSigningRoot(depositMessage, domain) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return err | ||
| } | ||
| msgs[i] = sr | ||
| } | ||
| verify, err := bls.VerifyMultipleSignatures(sigs, msgs, pks) | ||
| if err != nil { | ||
| return errors.Errorf("could not verify multiple signatures: %v", err) | ||
| } | ||
| if !verify { | ||
| return errors.New("one or more deposit signatures did not verify") | ||
| } | ||
| return nil | ||
| } | ||
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Do we want to change
verifySignaturetoverifiedin the same PR? It seems to me it would be better to do it in another PR, and maybe open it beforehand to eliminate potential sources of errors and avoid doing too much in one PR. It's up to you.