Refactor 2PC GHASH #171
Merged
Refactor 2PC GHASH #171
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
sinui0
force-pushed
the
refactor/ghash-interface
branch
from
5131145
to
5ad6301
Compare
th4s
requested changes
Jan 24, 2023
themighty1
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2023
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Builder)] | ||
| pub struct GhashConfig { | ||
| /// Initial number of block shares to provision | ||
| #[builder(default = "1024")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we want 1026 here and below ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like powers of 2 🙃 but if we do find ourselves hitting against this limit we can adjust the default
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR moves the ghash impl into the
universal-hashcrate. The core logic should be untouched.Changes
UniversalHashtrait which is a common interface between GHASH and Poly1305max_message_length->max_block_countas the message vs block naming was a bit confusing.