fix: validate SVM optional parameter presence#1449
Draft
Reinis-FRP wants to merge 3 commits into
Draft
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Reinis Martinsons <reinis@umaproject.org>
9fd883e to
9b62bf2
Compare
Signed-off-by: Reinis Martinsons <reinis@umaproject.org>
Signed-off-by: Reinis Martinsons <reinis@umaproject.org>
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 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Adds consistency validation for SVM instructions that can load optional parameters either from instruction data or from the
instruction_paramsaccount.The validation requires each optional argument group to be consistently present or absent, and requires that presence to be opposite the
instruction_paramsaccount presence. This prevents callers from supplying conflicting values through both input paths.This fix has been reviewed by auditors and has already been deployed onchain.