This repository was archived by the owner on Sep 19, 2022. It is now read-only.
Updated constantTimeIsEqual to use binary addition to address a possible issue of summing up negative and positive sub-results of XOR operations to 0.#21
Open
bitnot wants to merge 1 commit intoiain-logan:masterfrom
Conversation
...to address a possible issue of summing up negative and positive sub-results of XOR operations to `0`.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Related to #1
I think the current implementation of
constantTimeIsEqualmight have an issue:The
r + (ab._1 ^ ab._2)part is not exactly the same asresult |= a[i] ^ b[i]from the article, as it uses addition of signed bytes as opposed to binary addition (OR), where sign does not matter.So it is possible to get say a
1and a-1via XORing and then add them up to a0.Array(-3,-2,4,1).sumis also 0, butArray(-3,-2,4,1).foldLeft(0){ (r,n) => r | n }is not. Hope this illustrates the point.PS. Just noticed deprecation warning. Keeping PR open for anyone who wants to use/fork the library.