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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: BLS key rotation #249
base: dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: BLS key rotation #249
Changes from all commits
f5ba67a
a71d3b2
1dc136b
03d40e1
2f6d7a5
b962174
271aad4
0e69039
2e24f07
0d2a041
35de894
e8b9836
47df343
c233b47
7af3d97
e44442e
c8ab592
982e50f
e1fc3ab
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
needs an event.
might want this added to the initializer as well.
I'm considering if any input sanitization makes sense here too -- should this have a min or max? is 0 an OK input? I feel like it's probably OK to not have this, given the owner-only nature of the function... I don't see any super "unsafe" values
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.
Didn't add to init because of bytecode size but I will see if it can be squeezed in. I could see really long values being not great for the delay but will probably not add sanitization for the same bytecode size issue
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.
discussed in-person, no sanitization seems OK, not in initializer is also acceptable to me (although not my ideal), no event is something I can live with but probably the most desirable of these
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.
why do we need a deregistrationCooldown if we keep the entire history of keys onchain?
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.
Or is 0 a reasonable value for deregistrationCooldown?
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.
@gpsanant has suggested this should be a few days. I think something like an hour is more reasonable
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...limits the rate at which operators can edit their keys. I don't think it's serving a serious purpose beyond maybe addressing some theoretical worry where an operator keeps changing their key? I guess if you need to search past keys it's potentially problematic if the growth rate of the historical storage isn't limited?