fix: guarantee that max prefix length is < min prefix length + child size

[crodriguezvega]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.15385% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.76%. Comparing base (22a0173) to head (2b6f34f).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
rust/src/verify.rs	96.15%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #369      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.51%   67.76%   +0.24%     
==========================================
  Files           7        7              
  Lines        3014     3037      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits         2035     2058      +23     
  Misses        979      979              

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	67.76% <96.15%> (+0.24%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[AdityaSripal]

Nice work! Ideally we would also have a test that malleates the prefix in order to fool the proof system that now fails. You should be able to pull out the test case from the audit report so don't have to create yourself

[colin-axner]

Agree that we should have the malleate test case (also a unit test for go code?). The audit recommended updating the proto documentation to indicate this restriction as well

(also looks like rust formatting needs to be fixed)

[colin-axner]

requesting review from @romac to verify the rust changes

[colin-axner]

gonna mark as draft until:

• malleate test added
• unit test for check against inner spec test: add unit tests for go InnerOp.CheckAgainstSpec #373
• proto docs updated
• rust formatting fixed

[romac]

requesting review from @romac to verify the rust changes

LGTM, just needs a cargo fmt --all

[colin-axner]

for what it is worth. Spec fields being validated against themselves are better off in a spec.Validate() function, but for the sake of minimizing changes, this approach makes sense to me