-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Have ge_set_gej_var, gej_double_var and ge_set_all_gej_var initialize all fields of their outputs. #937
Have ge_set_gej_var, gej_double_var and ge_set_all_gej_var initialize all fields of their outputs. #937
Conversation
Previous behaviour would not initialize r->x and r->y values in the case where infinity is passed in.
utACK dd6c3de |
Concept ACK Unless I'm mistaken, I think |
This function exits without leaving anything uninitialized, so nothing to vg_undef here. Aside, in the past I hadn't UNDEFed anywhere in the codebase itself, only in the tests to avoid injecting vg instrumentation in the production binary.. but we do that now for the CT tests and I think were were satisfied it was benign enough. edit: oh I see, the set infinity could be undefing x/y. I suppose it could be. But that should be a separate PR if it gets done. |
Right, that's what I had in mind.
Fair point. |
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.
utACK dd6c3de
Previous behaviour would not initialize r->x and r->y values in the case where infinity is passed in.
Previous behaviour would not initialize r->y values in the case where infinity is passed in. Furthermore, the previous behaviour wouldn't initialize anything in the case where all inputs were infinity.
utACK 45b6468 |
@roconnor-blockstream You could cherry pick the top two commits from https://github.com/real-or-random/secp256k1/commits/20210504_ge_set_gej_var edit: I have verified that the new test fails on master. |
d5c10f8
to
ebdb8f4
Compare
Ah damn, this was not the latest version on my branch -.- Let me push the right one. Sorry. |
Now my branch should have the right commits... I somehow had lost them. (The reflog is nice sometimes. :)) |
7ab6b0a
to
45b6468
Compare
ACK 14c9739 |
utACK 14c9739 |
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.
ACK 14c9739
Previous behaviour would not initialize
r->x
andr->y
values in the case where infinity is passed in.