You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This bug was discovered with the introduction of read requests. Prior to this there were 0 membership checks occurring for reads of private notes/commitments.
In client_execution_context.ts's fetchNotes, the calll simulator oracle's getNotes retrieves a leaf index from the DB that does not match its location in the private data tree. Debugging the e2e cross chain messaging test led to the discovery that when leafIndex 5 is communicated from the simulator (via getNotes2), the corresponding leaf is 0, but the commitment described by its read request lives at leaf index 17.
I debugged this by adding in helper functions on the kernel oracle and aztec node to get leaf index by value etc. This exposed that when the the simulator oracle says there is a valid note at index 5, the node says there is no commitment at that index, and in fact that commitment exists at leaf index 17.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This bug was discovered with the introduction of read requests. Prior to this there were 0 membership checks occurring for reads of private notes/commitments.
In
client_execution_context.ts
'sfetchNotes
, the calll simulator oracle'sgetNotes
retrieves a leaf index from the DB that does not match its location in the private data tree. Debugging the e2e cross chain messaging test led to the discovery that when leafIndex 5 is communicated from the simulator (viagetNotes2
), the corresponding leaf is 0, but the commitment described by its read request lives at leaf index 17.getNotes
inclient_execution_context
private_execution
'sgetNotes2
I debugged this by adding in helper functions on the kernel oracle and aztec node to get leaf index by value etc. This exposed that when the the simulator oracle says there is a valid note at index 5, the node says there is no commitment at that index, and in fact that commitment exists at leaf index 17.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: