Skip to content

Conversation

@stevenroose
Copy link
Contributor

Dmitry pointed out this potential overflow. They can't really happen
because of the CheckTransaction check on explicit amounts that
happens earlier in the verification chain. But it's a good idea to
add the check here as well so that a potential relaxing of other rules
cannot accidentally introduce an overflow risk.

Dmitry pointed out this potential overflow. They can't really happen
because of the `CheckTransaction` check on explicit amounts that
happens earlier in the verification chain. But it's a good idea to
add the check here as well so that a potential relaxing of other rules
cannot accidentally introduce an overflow risk.
Copy link
Contributor

@jonasnick jonasnick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The additional checks help verifying that nothing fishy can happen. utACK 98e42a0

stevenroose added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 16, 2020
11d6f80 Fix HasValidFee potential overflow (Steven Roose)

Pull request description:

  Backport of #863.

Tree-SHA512: ae46ecba8bbfa93d95d8567c9bafbf06949bb69e805d7ed61406b12844d4060304ee7990765fe235cf075ba89274555148928ed9cf89f0e353af11f0ed88b894
@stevenroose stevenroose merged commit 18fadba into ElementsProject:master Apr 16, 2020
stevenroose pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants