Moudy 34f8b6cac8 docs: split miscoupled private-PDA test docs and clean phrasing ...

Addresses the following review comments:

- "Isn't two_mask_3_claims_under_same_seed_are_rejected already checking
  that there's a mechanism protecting against this exploit scenario?"
  The doc block at nssa/src/state.rs:2488-2504 mixes three paragraphs,
  one about reuse, one TODO about wallet side input, one exploit pin,
  all attached to two_mask_3_claims_under_same_seed_are_rejected. The
  reuse test below it had no doc at all. I split as follows: the
  exploit-pin paragraph stays on two_mask_3_claims_..., the reuse
  paragraph moves to a fresh docstring on
  mask_3_reuse_across_txs_currently_unsupported.

- "I don't understand this. I think this should fail because ... the
  input pre_state which is marked with is_authorized=true will make
  things fail."
  The reuse test's new docstring cites the actual reject site, the
  post-loop private_pda_bound_positions assertion in
  privacy_preserving_circuit.rs:185-192. At top level the Entry::Vacant
  arm accepts is_authorized=true unconditionally, the rejection comes
  from the bound-positions check firing because noop emits no Claim::Pda
  and there is no caller ChainedCall.pda_seeds.

- "let's dont have this TODO as part of the doc"
  The block is moved out into regular // comments immediately above
  mask_3_reuse_across_txs_currently_unsupported.

- "let's not add implementation details to docs"
  In caller_pda_seeds_authorize_mask_3_private_pda_for_callee's
  docstring, I dropped the parenthetical "(Occupied branch)" and the
  trailing sentence about which validate_and_sync_states code path gets
  exercised.

- "what does \`Claim::Pda(seed)\` / \`pda_seeds\` mean?"
  I rewrote the pda_family_binding docstring at
  privacy_preserving_circuit.rs:33-39: replaced the ambiguous
  "Claim::PrivatePda and ChainedCall's private seeds into plain
  Claim::Pda(seed) / pda_seeds" phrase with "a Claim::Pda(seed) in a
  program's post_state or a caller's ChainedCall.pda_seeds entry".

- Suggestion on nssa/src/validated_state_diff.rs:226 rewriting
  "The public-execution path only sees mask-0 accounts" to
  "The public-execution path only sees public accounts".
  Applied: "The public-execution path only sees public accounts".

- Clarification requested on the private_pda_bound_positions field:
  I expanded the docstring at privacy_preserving_circuit.rs:26-31 to
  state that binding is an idempotent property, not an event, and to
  enumerate the two proof paths that populate it (a Claim::Pda on a
  mask-3 pre_state, or a caller's pda_seeds matching under the private
  derivation).

2026-04-21 00:37:06 +02:00

..

src/bin

docs: split miscoupled private-PDA test docs and clean phrasing

2026-04-21 00:37:06 +02:00

Cargo.toml

merge main into feat-caller-program-id-and-flash-swap

2026-04-07 19:27:27 +02:00