Feature/solution skvs #766
Open
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
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
chenchanglew
force-pushed
the
feature/solution-skvs
branch
from
05c5cd2
to
8fb8b84
Compare
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
Comment on lines
+26
to
+33
| // chaincode := fpc.NewPrivateChaincode(secretChaincode) | ||
| skvsChaincode := fpc.NewSkvsChaincode(secretChaincode) | ||
|
|
||
| // start chaincode as a service | ||
| server := &shim.ChaincodeServer{ | ||
| CCID: ccid, | ||
| Address: addr, | ||
| CC: chaincode, | ||
| CC: skvsChaincode, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was wondering if we want multiple main files? So we have an example to run secret keeper with and without skvs?
/samples/chaincode/secret-keeper-go/cmd/simple/main.go
/samples/chaincode/secret-keeper-go/cmd/skvs/main.go
A few words in the secret-keeper readme would be nice as well.
| "github.com/pkg/errors" | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| type SkvsStubInterface struct { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the name of this file should be all small caps
| return &skvsStub{enclaveStub} | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (e *skvsStub) ChaincodeInvoke(stub shim.ChaincodeStubInterface, chaincodeRequestMessageBytes []byte) ([]byte, error) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have the feeling that we should remove this wrapper and instead just inject a provider function for the stub that we can set externally.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no sure about this one, might need to ask more insight
Signed-off-by: chenchanglew <[email protected]>
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.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Implement a Rollback attack protection solution for FPC: SKVS.
Single Key-Value Storage (SKVS) is a naive approach for rollback attacks. All key-value pairs are encapsulated and stored in this approach with a single call to put_state(). During execution, the enclave must load the entire state before accessing individual key-value pairs. While this approach prevents the rollback attack, applications with large states and multiple writers will experience bad performance, as the use of a single key-value pair will cause transactions to fail due to concurrent write issues.
A user can use it by changing the chain code to SVKS chaincode
ex:
skvsChaincode := fpc.NewSkvsChaincode(secretChaincode)Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #484
Special notes for your reviewer:
Loom demonstration video: Watch here