-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 407
Remove get_node_secret from NodeSigner #1951
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
Remove get_node_secret from NodeSigner #1951
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 90.73% // Head: 90.68% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1951 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.73% 90.68% -0.05%
==========================================
Files 97 97
Lines 50588 50660 +72
Branches 50588 50660 +72
==========================================
+ Hits 45900 45941 +41
- Misses 4688 4719 +31
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
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.
I'm super excited about this PR. It's very obvious how much sweat has gone into this, so I hope we can land this soon without needing a bunch of rebases on the way.
6111eb7
to
a74da34
Compare
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.
Basically LGTM, needs rebase after #1946.
I'd strongly prefer PRs this big be split into a few commits, this adds new signing methods that could be their own commit, refactors fuzzers that could, etc. |
6069c13
to
d2f885e
Compare
LGTM, barring the newly arisen merge conflict. |
d2f885e
to
02f1674
Compare
It should be super trivial to split this commit into, at least (a) the addition/use of |
02f1674
to
8887b51
Compare
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ impl<'a> std::hash::Hash for Peer<'a> { | |||
type ChannelMan<'a> = ChannelManager< | |||
Arc<chainmonitor::ChainMonitor<EnforcingSigner, Arc<dyn chain::Filter>, Arc<TestBroadcaster>, Arc<FuzzEstimator>, Arc<dyn Logger>, Arc<TestPersister>>>, | |||
Arc<TestBroadcaster>, Arc<KeyProvider>, Arc<KeyProvider>, Arc<KeyProvider>, Arc<FuzzEstimator>, &'a FuzzRouter, Arc<dyn Logger>>; | |||
type PeerMan<'a> = PeerManager<Peer<'a>, Arc<ChannelMan<'a>>, Arc<P2PGossipSync<Arc<NetworkGraph<Arc<dyn Logger>>>, Arc<dyn chain::Access>, Arc<dyn Logger>>>, IgnoringMessageHandler, Arc<dyn Logger>, IgnoringMessageHandler>; | |||
type PeerMan<'a> = PeerManager<Peer<'a>, Arc<ChannelMan<'a>>, Arc<P2PGossipSync<Arc<NetworkGraph<Arc<dyn Logger>>>, Arc<dyn chain::Access>, Arc<dyn Logger>>>, IgnoringMessageHandler, Arc<dyn Logger>, IgnoringMessageHandler, Arc<KeyProvider>>; |
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.
this technically has nothing to do with this PR and I know that this is just a fuzz test, but PeerMan
and ChannelMan
are horrible type names. At some point we should rename them to something more meaningful.
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.
It's just a peer, man.
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.
PeerWoman
is underrepresented.
da154e7
to
e253c04
Compare
This ensures that we hit additional assertions which are intended to always be run in tests.
These implementations have every method panic, so assuming that the test suite passes, these implementations are never used.
e253c04
to
7fcbdf1
Compare
Adds signing capability to NodeSigner for all gossip messages that require a node signature.
Secrets should not be exposed in-memory at the interface level as it would be impossible the implement it against a hardware security module/secure element.
7fcbdf1
to
acd2ae6
Compare
Secrets should not be exposed in-memory at the interface level as it would be impossible the implement it against a hardware security module/secure element.
Fixes #1819.