-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 138
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
Check if CBOR tag number is reserved by atree before using it to encode Cadence values #3532
Merged
fxamacker
merged 2 commits into
master
from
fxamacker/check-cbor-tag-range-for-cadence-internal-value-encoding
Aug 19, 2024
Merged
Check if CBOR tag number is reserved by atree before using it to encode Cadence values #3532
fxamacker
merged 2 commits into
master
from
fxamacker/check-cbor-tag-range-for-cadence-internal-value-encoding
Aug 19, 2024
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This commit checks if CBOR tag number is reserved by atree for internal use before using it to encode Cadence values as elements in atree containers. As of Aug 15, 2024: - Atree reserves CBOR tag numbers [240, 255] for internal use. - Cadence uses CBOR tag numbers [128, 230] for encoding Cadence values as elements in atree containers. When a new tag number is needed, Atree will use higher tag number first from its reserved range. In contrast, Cadence will use lower tag numbers first from its own (different) reserved range. This allows Atree and Cadence more flexibility in case we need to revisit allocation of adjacent unused ranges for Atree and Cadence. When new tag numbers are needed in Atree, we will use higher tag numbers first from Atree's reserved range. In Cadence, we will use lower tag numbers first from its own (different) reserved range. This allows Atree and Cadence more flexibility in case we need to revisit allocation of adjacent unused ranges for Atree and Cadence.
Cadence Benchstat comparisonThis branch with compared with the base branch onflow:master commit 15ca984 Collapsed results for better readability
|
turbolent
approved these changes
Aug 17, 2024
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.
Good idea, nice!
6 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Using tag numbers reserved for atree internal use can result in data in storage that cannot be decoded.
To reduce risks, this PR checks if CBOR tag number is reserved by atree for internal use before using it to encode Cadence values as elements in atree containers.
As of Aug 15, 2024:
When new tag numbers are needed in Atree, we will use higher tag numbers first from Atree's reserved range. In Cadence, we will use lower tag numbers first from its own (different) reserved range. This allows Atree and Cadence more flexibility in case we need to revisit allocation of adjacent unused ranges for Atree and Cadence.
While at it, also used new function
SlabID.Address()
to simply related code.master
branchFiles changed
in the Github PR explorer