Propose an implementation of `noise_sv2` with optional `no_std` #1238

Georges760 · 2024-10-29T10:39:08Z

Some equivalent conversion have been done (does not change any functionality, just using the no_std equivalents) :

std::ptr -> core::ptr
std::boxed::Box -> alloc::boxed::Box
std::vec::Vec -> alloc::vec::Vec
std::string::{String, ToString} -> alloc::string::{String, ToString}
std::convert::TryInto -> core::convert::TryInto
std::fmt::{Debug, Formatter, Result} -> core::fmt::{Debug, Formatter, Result}
std::time::Duration -> core::time::Duration

To have a no-std version, the --no-default-features must be used.

Current public API (std dependant) is unchanged.
Additional public API for no_std compliance is available using the *_with_rng and *_with_now suffix, and the corresponding arguments. This delegate the choice of the Ramdom Number Generator and the current System Time to the caller, instead of assuming using the ones from std.

Initiator::new_with_rng(), Initiator::from_raw_k_with_rng(), Initiator::without_pk_with_rng(), Responder::new_with_rng(), Responder::from_authority_kp_with_rng() and Responder::generate_key_with_rng() take an additional argument: rng implementing rand::Rng + ?Sized
SignatureNoiseMessage::sign_with_rng() take an additional argument: rng implementing rand::Rng + rand::CryptoRng
Initiator::step_2_with_now() and SignatureNoiseMessage::verify_with_now() take an additional argument: now for the current system time epoch
Responder::step_1()_with_now_rng take two additional arguments: rng implementing rand::Rng + rand::CryptoRng and now for the current system time epoch

codecov · 2024-10-29T10:44:16Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 63.15789% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 19.11%. Comparing base (a053dc7) to head (a474b57).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/initiator.rs	50.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/responder.rs	58.82%	7 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1238      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   19.14%   19.11%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         166      166              
  Lines       10987    11047      +60     
==========================================
+ Hits         2104     2112       +8     
- Misses       8883     8935      +52

Flag	Coverage Δ
binary_codec_sv2-coverage	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
binary_serde_sv2-coverage	`3.56% <0.00%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
binary_sv2-coverage	`5.36% <0.00%> (-0.13%)`	⬇️
bip32_derivation-coverage	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
buffer_sv2-coverage	`25.02% <ø> (ø)`
codec_sv2-coverage	`0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
common_messages_sv2-coverage	`0.13% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
const_sv2-coverage	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
error_handling-coverage	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
framing_sv2-coverage	`0.28% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
jd_client-coverage	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
jd_server-coverage	`7.79% <ø> (ø)`
job_declaration_sv2-coverage	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
key-utils-coverage	`2.39% <ø> (ø)`
mining-coverage	`2.45% <0.00%> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
mining_device-coverage	`0.00% <ø> (ø)`
mining_proxy_sv2-coverage	`0.70% <ø> (ø)`
noise_sv2-coverage	`4.46% <80.00%> (+0.10%)`	⬆️
pool_sv2-coverage	`2.05% <ø> (ø)`
protocols	`24.63% <63.15%> (-0.11%)`	⬇️
roles	`6.55% <ø> (ø)`
roles_logic_sv2-coverage	`7.95% <0.00%> (-0.17%)`	⬇️
sv2_ffi-coverage	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
template_distribution_sv2-coverage	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
translator_sv2-coverage	`9.60% <ø> (ø)`
utils	`25.13% <ø> (ø)`
v1-coverage	`2.42% <0.00%> (-0.06%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Sjors · 2024-12-06T06:20:07Z

Is it possible to run tests on both the regular and no_std build?

Georges760 · 2024-12-06T09:20:44Z

Is it possible to run tests on both the regular and no_std build?

#![no_std] for noise_sv2 (this PR) is a proposal currently, because it require to break its API, so I am waiting for @Shourya742 review of the new proposed API (maybe need to be improved/extended/simplified/etc), then I will work on adapting all depending crate to the new API.

At the end there will not be such a 'std' version of noise_sv2, it will be no_std by nature, which means not dependant to std.

And usage (test included) will have to provide a System Time and a Random Number Generator to the crate, they can comme from std (currently the 'enforced' case), or from a dedicated Hardware (often the case in embedded system aka no_std).
In tests, I will be able to provide them from std, to have the current state, or from a mocked embedded provider to simulat real HW.

Sjors · 2024-12-06T09:37:02Z

I see. But I wonder if it's possible & safer to keep two versions, because IIUC no_std misses various safety features.

https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/intro/no-std.html

Georges760 · 2024-12-06T10:16:31Z

I see. But I wonder if it's possible & safer to keep two versions, because IIUC no_std misses various safety features.

https://docs.rust-embedded.org/book/intro/no-std.html

I see, you refer to stack overflow protection missing in no_std, I didn't know that, thanks to point it to me.

A double API conditioned by the std feature ? yeah why not ! I will push that this weekend.

Georges760 · 2024-12-07T09:11:50Z

After reflexion, I think that a #![no_std] lib crate still does not enforce the main crate (the one choosing to link against std or not) so stack overflow protection is only lost if and only if the main crate choose to be #![no_std] (real embedded system).

If the main crate is std aware, even if it use some #![no_std] lib as dep, it will profit from the std security features.

handshake example is a good exemple of a 'main' std crate (using std::rand and std::time) using a #![no_std] lib dep (noise_sv2) and providing the Random Number Generator and System Time (of std) through the lib API so the lib does require std itself.

Breaking the API is a problem for std enviroement, and I fully agree it should be broken. So I will push this dual API (std unchanged, no_std new) according to a std feature enabled by default, in order to keep backward compat.

github-actions · 2024-12-07T10:31:17Z

Bencher Report

Branch	noise_sv2_no_std
Testbed	sv1

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Estimated Cycles	Benchmark Result 1e3 x estimated cycles (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary 1e3 x estimated cycles (Limit %)	Instructions	Benchmark Result 1e3 x instructions (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary 1e3 x instructions (Limit %)	L1 Accesses	Benchmark Result 1e3 x accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary 1e3 x accesses (Limit %)	L2 Accesses	Benchmark Result accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary accesses (Limit %)	RAM Accesses	Benchmark Result accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary accesses (Limit %)
get_authorize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	8.38 (-0.89%)	8.67 (96.62%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	3.69 (-0.93%)	3.86 (95.53%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5.16 (-1.02%)	5.45 (94.72%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.00 (-17.72%)	16.42 (42.64%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	91.00 (-0.45%)	96.82 (93.99%)
get_submit	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	95.22 (-0.15%)	95.61 (99.58%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	59.35 (-0.09%)	59.71 (99.39%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	85.22 (-0.10%)	85.82 (99.30%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	45.00 (+0.40%)	60.35 (74.56%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	279.00 (-0.62%)	291.87 (95.59%)
get_subscribe	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.87 (-1.51%)	8.23 (95.65%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2.77 (-1.65%)	2.94 (93.97%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	3.85 (-1.90%)	4.14 (92.87%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14.00 (+11.44%)	20.76 (67.44%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	113.00 (-1.33%)	117.94 (95.81%)
serialize_authorize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	12.10 (-1.28%)	12.51 (96.75%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5.27 (-0.59%)	5.43 (97.05%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.33 (-0.64%)	7.60 (96.42%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.00 (-12.33%)	18.89 (47.63%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	135.00 (-2.14%)	143.35 (94.18%)
serialize_deserialize_authorize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	24.59 (-0.52%)	25.19 (97.62%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.84 (-0.19%)	10.01 (98.28%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	13.88 (-0.19%)	14.18 (97.93%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	34.00 (-5.39%)	45.91 (74.05%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	301.00 (-0.86%)	313.67 (95.96%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_authorize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	30.10 (-0.74%)	30.73 (97.95%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	12.02 (-0.28%)	12.19 (98.60%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	17.00 (-0.32%)	17.30 (98.31%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	57.00 (+2.04%)	67.45 (84.50%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	366.00 (-1.35%)	379.48 (96.45%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_submit	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	126.21 (-0.19%)	126.78 (99.55%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	73.20 (-0.06%)	73.53 (99.55%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	104.92 (-0.07%)	105.51 (99.44%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	108.00 (+1.16%)	125.87 (85.80%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	593.00 (-0.80%)	610.64 (97.11%)
serialize_deserialize_handle_subscribe	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	27.71 (-0.70%)	28.38 (97.64%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	9.58 (-0.47%)	9.76 (98.20%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	13.53 (-0.58%)	13.84 (97.81%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	71.00 (+9.86%)	78.15 (90.86%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	395.00 (-1.06%)	409.80 (96.39%)
serialize_deserialize_submit	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	115.13 (-0.10%)	115.72 (99.49%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	68.06 (+0.01%)	68.42 (99.47%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	97.65 (+0.01%)	98.29 (99.35%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	65.00 (-0.95%)	87.74 (74.08%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	490.00 (-0.70%)	505.34 (96.96%)
serialize_deserialize_subscribe	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	23.13 (-0.83%)	23.82 (97.11%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	8.14 (-0.51%)	8.32 (97.92%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	11.46 (-0.56%)	11.75 (97.52%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	39.00 (-0.10%)	51.12 (76.29%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	328.00 (-1.10%)	342.48 (95.77%)
serialize_submit	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	99.60 (-0.19%)	100.09 (99.50%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	61.41 (-0.07%)	61.73 (99.47%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	88.09 (-0.08%)	88.65 (99.37%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	48.00 (-0.45%)	67.05 (71.59%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	322.00 (-1.05%)	337.63 (95.37%)
serialize_subscribe	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	11.31 (-0.75%)	11.60 (97.54%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4.12 (-1.03%)	4.28 (96.15%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5.71 (-1.23%)	6.00 (95.18%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	15.00 (+7.20%)	24.31 (61.70%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	158.00 (-0.34%)	164.63 (95.97%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

github-actions · 2024-12-07T10:31:17Z

Bencher Report

Branch	noise_sv2_no_std
Testbed	sv1

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result nanoseconds (ns) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary nanoseconds (ns) (Limit %)
client-submit-serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6,381.90 (-2.52%)	6,955.19 (91.76%)
client-submit-serialize-deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7,252.90 (-1.96%)	7,848.35 (92.41%)
client-submit-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-submit-serialize-deserialize-handle	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7,848.50 (-2.96%)	9,429.72 (83.23%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize-handle	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	871.97 (+0.40%)	943.27 (92.44%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize/client-sv1-authorize-serialize-deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	676.44 (+0.03%)	724.68 (93.34%)
client-sv1-authorize-serialize/client-sv1-authorize-serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	248.98 (-0.47%)	274.15 (90.82%)
client-sv1-get-authorize/client-sv1-get-authorize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	155.76 (-1.09%)	165.42 (94.16%)
client-sv1-get-submit	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6,192.20 (-2.25%)	6,773.46 (91.42%)
client-sv1-get-subscribe/client-sv1-get-subscribe	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	277.39 (-2.27%)	338.01 (82.07%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize-handle/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize-handle	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	733.49 (+0.78%)	780.38 (93.99%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize-deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	599.73 (+1.53%)	628.73 (95.39%)
client-sv1-subscribe-serialize/client-sv1-subscribe-serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	204.86 (-0.75%)	226.65 (90.39%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

github-actions · 2024-12-07T10:31:18Z

Bencher Report

Branch	noise_sv2_no_std
Testbed	sv2

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	Benchmark Result nanoseconds (ns) (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary nanoseconds (ns) (Limit %)
client_sv2_handle_message_common	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	44.08 (-2.58%)	60.01 (73.45%)
client_sv2_handle_message_mining	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	75.09 (-2.96%)	107.55 (69.82%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14.75 (+0.58%)	14.77 (99.92%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	262.87 (-0.21%)	284.60 (92.37%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	601.64 (-2.47%)	681.99 (88.22%)
client_sv2_open_channel	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	170.62 (+2.65%)	180.15 (94.71%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	279.12 (-2.46%)	314.99 (88.61%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	375.86 (-1.62%)	399.70 (94.03%)
client_sv2_setup_connection	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	157.67 (-1.36%)	171.30 (92.04%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	461.74 (-1.68%)	556.09 (83.03%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,057.60 (+4.48%)	1,230.16 (85.97%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

github-actions · 2024-12-07T10:31:18Z

Bencher Report

Branch	noise_sv2_no_std
Testbed	sv2

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Estimated Cycles	Benchmark Result 1e3 x estimated cycles (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary 1e3 x estimated cycles (Limit %)	Instructions	Benchmark Result instructions (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary instructions (Limit %)	L1 Accesses	Benchmark Result accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary accesses (Limit %)	L2 Accesses	Benchmark Result accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary accesses (Limit %)	RAM Accesses	Benchmark Result accesses (Result Δ%)	Upper Boundary accesses (Limit %)
client_sv2_handle_message_common	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2.08 (-1.77%)	2.24 (92.83%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	481.00 (+1.55%)	490.78 (98.01%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	747.00 (+1.48%)	759.27 (98.38%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7.00 (+37.42%)	11.63 (60.20%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	37.00 (-4.28%)	41.75 (88.63%)
client_sv2_handle_message_mining	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	8.28 (+0.65%)	8.40 (98.57%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2,137.00		📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	3,155.00 (-0.12%)	3,167.41 (99.61%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	38.00 (+6.76%)	41.56 (91.44%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	141.00 (+0.92%)	144.56 (97.53%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6.27 (-0.56%)	6.45 (97.18%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,758.00 (+0.42%)	1,767.78 (99.45%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2,562.00 (+0.39%)	2,575.71 (99.47%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	20.00 (+16.52%)	24.08 (83.04%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	103.00 (-1.62%)	108.79 (94.68%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14.70 (-0.20%)	14.94 (98.39%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4,702.00 (+0.16%)	4,711.78 (99.79%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	6,761.00 (+0.08%)	6,786.74 (99.62%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	54.00 (+17.85%)	63.34 (85.26%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	219.00 (-0.98%)	226.15 (96.84%)
client_sv2_mining_message_submit_standard_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	27.74 (+0.49%)	28.06 (98.85%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	10,653.00 (+0.43%)	10,699.77 (99.56%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	15,515.00 (+0.48%)	15,595.91 (99.48%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	93.00 (+10.92%)	99.35 (93.61%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	336.00 (+0.13%)	343.17 (97.91%)
client_sv2_open_channel	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4.46 (+1.34%)	4.58 (97.36%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,469.00 (+0.50%)	1,478.78 (99.34%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2,168.00 (+0.34%)	2,184.89 (99.23%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	11.00 (+33.97%)	14.02 (78.48%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	64.00 (+1.71%)	67.79 (94.40%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14.00 (-0.17%)	14.20 (98.55%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5,072.00 (+0.14%)	5,081.78 (99.81%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	7,331.00 (+0.07%)	7,352.83 (99.70%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	45.00 (+22.53%)	48.64 (92.52%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	184.00 (-1.08%)	190.91 (96.38%)
client_sv2_open_channel_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	22.80 (+0.39%)	23.07 (98.81%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	8,048.00 (+0.19%)	8,057.98 (99.88%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	11,703.00 (+0.15%)	11,714.06 (99.91%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	84.00 (+10.72%)	90.02 (93.31%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	305.00 (+0.28%)	312.82 (97.50%)
client_sv2_setup_connection	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	4.69 (+0.02%)	4.79 (97.94%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	1,510.00 (+0.49%)	1,519.78 (99.36%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	2,288.00 (+0.40%)	2,301.21 (99.43%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	12.00 (+27.15%)	15.31 (78.37%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	67.00 (-0.89%)	70.14 (95.53%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	16.17 (+0.11%)	16.33 (99.06%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	5,971.00 (+0.12%)	5,980.78 (99.84%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	8,664.00 (+0.00%)	8,692.60 (99.67%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	53.00 (+29.99%)	56.65 (93.56%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	207.00 (-0.60%)	212.17 (97.56%)
client_sv2_setup_connection_serialize_deserialize	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	35.70 (+0.26%)	35.96 (99.28%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	14,896.00 (+0.19%)	14,920.06 (99.84%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	21,881.00 (+0.17%)	21,919.64 (99.82%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	110.00 (+16.21%)	120.17 (91.54%)	📈 view plot 🚷 view threshold	379.00 (-0.17%)	385.73 (98.26%)

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

Georges760 · 2024-12-07T10:58:23Z

Thanks to @Sjors good comment, the current API is unchanged and an addition one allow no_std.

This is the way secp256k1 crate is doing it too, see sign_schnorr_with_rng.

Shourya742

utack 9f2a908. Will test the PR once with the whole setup up and running. Rest looks ok on first glance with minor nits

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/handshake.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/signature_message.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/responder.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/handshake.rs

Georges760 · 2024-12-07T16:39:17Z

utack 9f2a908. Will test the PR once with the whole setup up and running. Rest looks ok on first glance with minor nits

PR good to merge (for me) nothing more to add, you can test it

Shourya742

tack feeb225. Just a few minor nits left, and we’re good to go. The handshake messages look as expected.

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/handshake.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/initiator.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/responder.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/signature_message.rs

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/Cargo.toml

Shourya742 · 2024-12-11T08:15:25Z

@Georges760 You’ll need to bump the major version to make CI happy.

Georges760 · 2024-12-11T08:39:18Z

@Georges760 You’ll need to bump the major version to make CI happy.

do you want me to do it in this PR ?

also should I rebase on main ?

Shourya742

These doc comments are exactly similar std counterparts. Could you add a quick note on why we need this with the random number generator? instead of this. Also, we usually skip 'Arguments' and 'Return type' sections in our docs, so if you can update those too, that’d be great!

Shourya742

ACK

Georges760 · 2024-12-18T10:11:12Z

CI is still randomly failing :

on last dev call, the re-run made it pass
after my last reabse, it PASS
after my README last push, it FAIL again (i am unable to re-run the job)

Georges760 · 2024-12-26T15:38:44Z

AFAIK @Shourya742 already TACK this PR, waiting for @rrybarczyk review.

rrybarczyk

Looks good to me. Thanks @Georges760.

plebhash · 2025-01-08T19:30:55Z

@Georges760 I think this is almost ready for merging, but commit history looks a bit confusing.

For example, commit title of 771832b is:

utils/key-utils: revert changes, doesn't have to be changed in this PR

I'm not sure how to interpret this... is this commit intended to be on this PR or not?

also some commits could be squashed (or dropped, in case they're not meant to be on this PR)

plebhash · 2025-01-08T19:31:41Z

CI is still randomly failing :

on last dev call, the re-run made it pass

after my last reabse, it PASS

after my README last push, it FAIL again (i am unable to re-run the job)

we're looking into a way to make it deterministic, apologies for that

but doesn't look like anything serious

Georges760 · 2025-01-08T20:26:22Z

@Georges760 I think this is almost ready for merging, but commit history looks a bit confusing.

For example, commit title of 771832b is:

utils/key-utils: revert changes, doesn't have to be changed in this PR

I'm not sure how to interpret this... is this commit intended to be on this PR or not?

also some commits could be squashed (or dropped, in case they're not meant to be on this PR)

I will squash everything tomorrow;)

Georges760 · 2025-01-08T20:27:55Z

CI is still randomly failing :

on last dev call, the re-run made it pass

after my last reabse, it PASS

after my README last push, it FAIL again (i am unable to re-run the job)

we're looking into a way to make it deterministic, apologies for that

but doesn't look like anything serious

It was pretty ok lately, the last 5 or 6 rebase were all OK, only get Red on this last one of today.

…PI with `*_with_rng` and `*_with_now`

GitGab19 · 2025-01-10T09:24:31Z

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/Cargo.toml

+[features]
+default = ["std"]
+std = ["rand/std", "rand/std_rng", "rand_chacha/std", "secp256k1/rand-std"]


Why are we keeping std for this crate, but we haven't done the same for the others in the previous PRs?

to not break current API relying on std.

I basically added an intermediary API for no_std (so it is only a semver MINOR upgrade) and keep the std dependant API under the std feature.

For all other crates, there were no std dependencies than couldn't be replaced by their core/alloc equivalent, so they bacame trully no_std. For noise_sv2 two std deps (system time and random number generator) cannot be done by core/alloc so to not break the current API, an other have to be added where we provided them and not assume using the one from std.

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/handshake.rs

Georges760 marked this pull request as draft October 29, 2024 10:41

Georges760 mentioned this pull request Oct 29, 2024

enforce no_std for some protocol/v2 crates #1230

Merged

rrybarczyk assigned Georges760 Nov 13, 2024

rrybarczyk requested a review from Shourya742 November 13, 2024 15:32

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from 2375b22 to f9319d7 Compare November 14, 2024 08:21

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from f9319d7 to da6e1c1 Compare December 7, 2024 10:24

Georges760 marked this pull request as ready for review December 7, 2024 11:01

Shourya742 suggested changes Dec 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

protocols/v2/noise-sv2/src/handshake.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

Shourya742 suggested changes Dec 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Georges760 requested a review from Shourya742 December 11, 2024 09:27

Shourya742 suggested changes Dec 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from 70a3a27 to 5f1817c Compare December 11, 2024 11:11

Georges760 requested a review from Shourya742 December 11, 2024 15:51

Shourya742 approved these changes Dec 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from 5f1817c to d6c8c8b Compare December 11, 2024 18:23

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch 3 times, most recently from 25cbb20 to 3df4528 Compare December 18, 2024 08:27

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch 5 times, most recently from 7176f7d to dda9233 Compare December 19, 2024 15:08

This was referenced Dec 20, 2024

Need cargo doc --all-features test in CI/CD #1311

Open

[WIP] add CI for Rust Docs #1313

Draft

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from dda9233 to e137377 Compare December 26, 2024 13:49

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch 4 times, most recently from aa777e1 to 26f8be3 Compare January 8, 2025 16:57

rrybarczyk approved these changes Jan 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from 26f8be3 to 03c1927 Compare January 9, 2025 09:14

plebhash added the ready-to-be-merged triggers auto rebase bot label Jan 9, 2025

noise_sv2: keep current (std) API unchanged, add a no_std compliant A…

a474b57

…PI with `*_with_rng` and `*_with_now`

Georges760 force-pushed the noise_sv2_no_std branch from 03c1927 to a474b57 Compare January 10, 2025 08:51

GitGab19 reviewed Jan 10, 2025

View reviewed changes

plebhash mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2025

version bumps for v1.3.0 #1345

Open

plebhash merged commit 4ad657a into stratum-mining:main Jan 10, 2025
37 checks passed

Georges760 deleted the noise_sv2_no_std branch January 13, 2025 14:40

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Propose an implementation of `noise_sv2` with optional `no_std` #1238

Propose an implementation of `noise_sv2` with optional `no_std` #1238

Georges760 commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Sjors commented Dec 6, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Sjors commented Dec 6, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Shourya742 commented Dec 11, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 11, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Shourya742 left a comment

Georges760 commented Dec 18, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 26, 2024

rrybarczyk left a comment

plebhash commented Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

plebhash commented Jan 8, 2025

Georges760 commented Jan 8, 2025

Georges760 commented Jan 8, 2025

GitGab19 Jan 10, 2025

Georges760 Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Propose an implementation of noise_sv2 with optional no_std #1238

Propose an implementation of noise_sv2 with optional no_std #1238

Conversation

Georges760 commented Oct 29, 2024 • edited Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

Sjors commented Dec 6, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Sjors commented Dec 6, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Bencher Report

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Bencher Report

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Bencher Report

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Bencher Report

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Georges760 commented Dec 7, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Shourya742 commented Dec 11, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 11, 2024

Shourya742 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Shourya742 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Georges760 commented Dec 18, 2024

Georges760 commented Dec 26, 2024

rrybarczyk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

plebhash commented Jan 8, 2025 • edited Loading

plebhash commented Jan 8, 2025

Georges760 commented Jan 8, 2025

Georges760 commented Jan 8, 2025

GitGab19 Jan 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Georges760 Jan 10, 2025 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Propose an implementation of `noise_sv2` with optional `no_std` #1238

Propose an implementation of `noise_sv2` with optional `no_std` #1238

Georges760 commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Georges760 commented Dec 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Dec 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

plebhash commented Jan 8, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Georges760 Jan 10, 2025 •

edited

Loading