-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 248
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
Refactor hash-to-curve around digest::XofReader trait #643
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Do you guys want this PR to be from a non-organizational repo so that you can change it? I could move somewhere else or @mmagician could move it to be internal or something else? |
MapToCurve::new seemingly originates from a more runtime oriented elliptic curve crate: https://github.com/armfazh/redox-ecc/blob/master/src/ellipticcurve.rs#L36 Arguably test_parameters should be inherent methods, invoked by whoever defined the parameters, but maybe not? I left the trait method for now.
Co-authored-by: Pratyush Mishra <pratyushmishra@berkeley.edu>
Co-authored-by: Pratyush Mishra <pratyushmishra@berkeley.edu>
Co-authored-by: Pratyush Mishra <pratyushmishra@berkeley.edu>
Co-authored-by: Pratyush Mishra <pratyushmishra@berkeley.edu>
rustfmt is wrong that f()? should be preferred over f() ?, as errors paths should often be highlighted, but nobody merged that fix yet, so whatever. rust-lang/rustfmt#5595
Interface remains shit, but it becomes fixable now.
I'd prefer free fns here myself, but likely everyone else prefers some trait, and it does make the interface more consistent.
work quite right yet
@burdges any progress on splitting up the hashing PRs as we discussed offline, for reviews to be more "digestible"? |
I've been too distracted lately but I'll try to get to it next week. It's really not that hard. |
Odd, why does 15fc1a5 not appear above now? |
Description
Addresses several concerns:
Hash-to-field and hash-to-curve are logically consumers of XoFs. The hash-to-curve spec is written this way. Also, ristretto exploits this, likely so do other elligator deployments, including some ed25519 protocols. It follows polymorphic implementations should expose hashing directly from XoFs, but still push users towards compliant domain separation. In fact, arkworks' hash-to-curve cannot currently use shake cipher suites, or other XoFs, only sha2 ones, which excludes some elligator curves, and all curves with security levels above 128 bits.
At the same time, the hash-to-curve spec creates messy dependencies across its internal XoF boundary. In particular, a security parameter plays several roles but depends upon the curve, or even the specific hash-to-curve. We hide this annoying security parameter in the MapToCurve trait. It's plausible but uncertain if
digest::core_api::BlockSizeUser
might permit computing this security parameter from the hash selected.Arkworks'
Field as UniformRand
cannot be made constant-time, so this exposes hashing-to-fields directly. At present, this hashing-to-fields is not constant-time because arkworks' field arithmetic is not constant-time, but at least one could deploy a protocol built with hash-to-field and later do constant-time field code.We do not expose hash-to-field in exactly the style of the hash-to-curve spec. A hash-to-curve for bls12-381 has 128 bits of security, but one could build a curve with higher security with the same base field or whose group order matched the base field, and then require shake256.
Arkworks needs considerable other boilerplate for hash-to-curve. We make a true default-per-curve hash-to-curve possible.
We preserve roughly the old MapToCurve interface, which already looked suitable for some snark friendly hash-to-curve schemes, although perhaps not within its security assumptions. It's likely the new XoF interface supports some other snark friendly hash-to-curve schemes.
XofVec
is an ugly hack, but frankly so is this whole sha2 XoF. This PR removes a lot of needless allocations elsewhere though.We should discuss this new interface further of course, so no curves PR for now, but doing one looks pretty trivial.
supersedes: #627
closes: #629 & #630
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
Pending
section inCHANGELOG.md
Files changed
in the GitHub PR explorer