Addresses the following review comments from @Arjentix:
- "I think there are too many internal implementation information
exposed here. This structure is used by our users, program devs. And
they should not care about distinction between private or public pda
or different masks"
(on ChainedCall.pda_seeds, same feedback repeated on Claim::Pda)
I rewrote both docstrings to drop internal details (visibility masks,
per-form derivation names, npk handling). Program devs see only that
they emit a seed and the `AccountId` is derived from
`(program_id, seed)` regardless of whether the account is public or
private.
- "Let's reflect the new nuance in the name"
(on compute_authorized_pdas returning public-form derivations only)
I renamed the function to `compute_public_authorized_pdas`. After
the PR #446 rework the function only returns public-form
derivations, the private-form authorization lives in the circuit
guest. Updated the call site in nssa/src/validated_state_diff.rs
and the two unit tests.
Addresses the following review comment:
- "I think this should be a constructor `AccountId::for_private_pda`.
Consider also removing the existing `impl From<(ProgramId, Seed)> for
AccountId` for public pdas in favor of a `AccountId::for_public_pda`
to have a unified way of constructing pdas"
I replaced `impl From<(&ProgramId, &PdaSeed)> for AccountId` with
`AccountId::for_public_pda(program_id: &ProgramId, seed: &PdaSeed) ->
Self` and replaced the free function `private_pda_account_id(...)`
with `AccountId::for_private_pda(program_id: &ProgramId, seed:
&PdaSeed, npk: &NullifierPublicKey) -> Self`. Both live in an inherent
`impl AccountId` block in nssa/core/src/program.rs next to the PDA
derivation logic. Migrated all call sites across nssa/core,
nssa/src/state.rs, nssa/src/validated_state_diff.rs,
program_methods/guest/src/bin/privacy_preserving_circuit.rs,
programs/amm/core, programs/associated_token_account/core, the example
tail-call binary, and the ATA tutorial doc. Test function names that
referenced the old free function were also renamed
(private_pda_account_id_* to for_private_pda_*).
Addresses the following review comments:
- "Shouldn't we use a program that checks authorization in this test as
callee? If not, I'm not sure if we are fully testing what the test
docs describe (namely, that the callee got the input account with
is_authorized=true). Maybe add a variant of the noop that checks the
input account is authorized."
I added test_program_methods/guest/src/bin/auth_asserting_noop.rs:
same shape as noop.rs except it asserts pre.is_authorized == true for
every pre_state before echoing the post_states. Any unauthorized
pre_state panics the guest, failing the whole circuit proof. I added
Program::auth_asserting_noop() as the matching helper. In
caller_pda_seeds_authorize_private_pda_for_callee and
caller_pda_seeds_with_wrong_seed_rejects_private_pda_for_callee, I
swapped Program::noop() for Program::auth_asserting_noop() as the
callee. The positive test now proves the callee actually sees
is_authorized=true, not just that the circuit's consistency check did
not reject. The negative test doubles its evidence, both the
circuit's authorization reconciliation and the callee guest would now
reject a wrong-seed delegation.
- "This branching logic is only correct because we are not supporting
non-authorized private accounts with non-default values. Likely to be
changed in the future. I'm sure there's use cases for this. For
example the multisig program if ran completely private it would need
a private non-default and non-authorized input account."
Agreed. Supporting this needs wallet-supplied `(seed, owner)` side
input so the npk-to-account_id binding can be re-verified for an
existing private PDA without a fresh Claim::Pda or a caller
pda_seeds match. I handled this in the second PR. I added a
TODO(private-pdas-pr-2/3) marker on the `else` branch in
privacy_preserving_circuit.rs:3 => { ... } so the constraint is
visible to future maintainers, along with a comment noting the
multisig use case.
Addresses the following review comments:
- "I'd rename all mask_3 references in test names and variables to a
private pda wording. If in the future we change the mask number for
the private pda, this naming will silently get outdated."
I renamed all tests and the local variable mask3_account to
private_pda_account.
- "Let's use more descriptive names. `mask3` is not very meaningful."
I renamed all `mask3` into `private_pda`. Panic messages and .expect
strings updated to match. Doc comments that factually describe the
encoding (e.g. "mask-3 account" meaning "an account whose visibility
mask is 3") are left as-is since they are accurate and remain stable
until the mask value itself changes.
- "..._panics" to "..._fails"
Covered above. The tests assert Err(CircuitProvingError), so
execute_and_prove returns an Err, the test process itself never
panics.
- "we can return `Some((*seed, true, caller))` to avoid having to unwrap
the `caller_program_id` again in line 290"
I changed matched_caller_seed from Option<(PdaSeed, bool)> to
Option<(PdaSeed, bool, ProgramId)>, return the `caller` captured by
the enclosing and_then from each match arm, and dropped the .expect
at the consumer site. Bundled with the rename since both touch the
same branch and a single guest ELF rebuild covers them.
Addresses the following review comments:
- "I'd keep this crate independent of wallet references"
I replaced all with "supplied npk".
- Rename request on locals attested_keys/wallet_keys
In mask_3_wallet_npk_mismatch_panics the two key sets play distinct
roles, one produces the pre_state's account_id (the registered pair)
and the other is supplied in private_account_keys as the mismatched
npk. Collapsing both to `keys` would be misleading. I renamed to
keys_a and keys_b with an inline comment noting which one is the
registered one and which one is mismatched.
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).
