Remove cryptographically unreachable error conditions #1887
Conversation
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
The `derive_{public,private}_key` methods hash the two input keys
and then add them to the input public key. Because addition can
fail if the tweak is the inverse of the secret key this method
currently returns a `Result`.
However, it is not cryptographically possible to reach the error
case - in order to create an issue, the SHA-256 hash of the
`base_point` (and other data) must be the inverse of the
`base_point`('s secret key). Because changing the `base_point`
changes the hash in an unpredictable way, there should be no way to
construct such a `base_point`.
The `derive_{public,private}_revocation_key` methods hash the two
input keys and then multiply the two input keys by hashed values
before adding them together. Because addition can fail if the tweak
is the inverse of the secret key this method currently returns a
`Result`.
However, it is not cryptographically possible to reach the error
case - in order to create an issue, the point-multiplied-by-hash
values must be the inverse of each other, however each point
commits the SHA-256 hash of both keys together. Thus, because
changing either key changes the hashes (and the ultimate points
added together) in an unpredictable way, there should be no way to
construct such points.
apoelstra
reviewed
Nov 30, 2022
| /// Note that this is infallible iff we trust that at least one of the two input keys are randomly | ||
| /// generated (ie our own). | ||
| pub fn derive_private_key<T: secp256k1::Signing>(secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<T>, per_commitment_point: &PublicKey, base_secret: &SecretKey) -> Result<SecretKey, SecpError> { | ||
| pub fn derive_private_key<T: secp256k1::Signing>(secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<T>, per_commitment_point: &PublicKey, base_secret: &SecretKey) -> SecretKey { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed this change (and the 3 following it) and confirmed that all the .expects are actually for cryptographically unreachable branches.
tnull
reviewed
Dec 2, 2022
Contributor
|
Looks good and seems safe to me. Not a lawyer though. |
arik-so
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2022
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.
No description provided.