keyless authenticator fixes: b64 fixes, training wheels signature #12287
Conversation
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
alinush
requested review from
davidiw,
wrwg,
zekun000,
vgao1996 and
georgemitenkov
as code owners
alinush
force-pushed
the
alin/training-wheel-updates
branch
3 times, most recently
from
9dcf803 to
48b8ab1
Compare
alinush
force-pushed
the
alin/training-wheel-updates
branch
from
1aeade7 to
d2e97e2
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rex1fernando
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12287 +/- ##
=========================================
- Coverage 64.2% 64.2% -0.1%
=========================================
Files 793 793
Lines 176259 176268 +9
=========================================
Hits 113188 113188
- Misses 63071 63080 +9 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
perryjrandall
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
heliuchuan
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
heliuchuan
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
hariria
reviewed
Feb 29, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM overall. Seems like we may not do this since do signatures are required (one over the ZKP and another over the txn).
One thing I would do is just double check MAX_SIZE of the ZkidSignature to make sure it can accommodate a potentially 1024 byte Passkey signature inside.
| @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ pub enum FeatureFlag { | |||
| RefundableBytes, | |||
| ObjectCodeDeployment, | |||
| MaxObjectNestingCheck, | |||
| KeylessAccountsWithPasskeys, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we want to be consistent with the naming we have in aptos-core maybe something like KeylessAccountWithWebAuthnCredential would make more sense but I see we're calling OIDC -> Keyless so maybe that's not what you're going for
alinush
force-pushed
the
alin/training-wheel-updates
branch
3 times, most recently
from
aa95a07 to
213a956
Compare
alinush
changed the title
…one for the TXN and another for the non-malleability
alinush
force-pushed
the
alin/training-wheel-updates
branch
from
213a956 to
c5a48d2
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
✅ Forge suite
|
✅ Forge suite
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Description
KeylessSignatureshould not be b64url-encodedexp_timestamp_secstoexp_date_secsfor consistency with our terminologyOpenIdSigshould not be b64url-encoded_jsonsuffixNo passkey support, because it would require working around the need for two passkey signatures: one one the TXN and another on the ZKP (non-malleability)