feat: support multiple proof systems in STM #2689

jpraynaud · 2025-09-11T16:28:19Z

Content

This PR includes support for multiple proof systems in the STM library:

Adds AggregateSignatureType enum with initial support for Concatenation proof system
Refactors AggregateSignature from struct to enum to support multiple proof system implementations (a new proof is now implemented in a dedicated sub-module of the proof sub-module)
Update of aggregator, e2e tests, infrastructure and CI to include the configuration of the aggregate signature type

Pre-submit checklist

Branch
- Tests are provided (if possible)
- Crates versions are updated (if relevant)
- CHANGELOG file is updated (if relevant)
- Commit sequence broadly makes sense
- Key commits have useful messages
PR
- All check jobs of the CI have succeeded
- Self-reviewed the diff
- Useful pull request description
- Reviewer requested
Documentation
- No new TODOs introduced

Issue(s)

Closes #2680

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs

github-actions · 2025-09-11T16:36:16Z

Test Results

4 files ±0 164 suites ±0 22m 51s ⏱️ - 1m 24s
2 184 tests +2 2 184 ✅ +2 0 💤 ±0 0 ❌ ±0
6 716 runs +7 6 716 ✅ +7 0 💤 ±0 0 ❌ ±0

Results for commit 94d39fe. ± Comparison against base commit 22f438c.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces support for multiple proof systems in the STM (Stake-based Threshold Multisignature) implementation by adding an aggregate signature type parameter. The main change refactors the existing concatenation proof system into a modular structure that can support future proof systems.

Adds AggregateSignatureType enum with initial support for Concatenation proof system
Refactors AggregateSignature from struct to enum to support multiple proof system implementations
Updates configuration, API, and infrastructure to include aggregate signature type parameter

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 45 out of 46 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
openapi.yaml	Adds `aggregate_signature_type` field to API specifications and examples
mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs	Refactors `AggregateSignature` from struct to enum with proof system abstraction
mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/proof/	Creates new modular proof system structure with concatenation implementation
mithril-aggregator/src/configuration.rs	Adds aggregate signature type configuration parameter
mithril-common/src/messages/aggregator_features.rs	Updates aggregator capabilities to include signature type
mithril-test-lab/	Updates test infrastructure to support aggregate signature type parameter

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs:1

Use proper Rust formatting with a space after 'else'. Should be } else { instead of }else{.

use std::collections::HashMap;

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs:1

Use proper Rust formatting with a space after 'else'. Should be } else { instead of }else{.

use std::collections::HashMap;

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

Copilot · 2025-09-17T16:33:28Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/clerk.rs

-    ///
-    /// It returns an instance of `AggregateSignature`.
+    /// Aggregate a set of signatures.
+    #[deprecated(since = "0.6.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures_with_type` instead")] // TODO: Update since version


[nitpick] The TODO comment indicates the deprecation version needs to be updated. Either update the version number or remove the TODO comment if the version is correct.

Suggested change

#[deprecated(since = "0.6.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures_with_type` instead")] // TODO: Update since version

#[deprecated(since = "0.6.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures_with_type` instead")]

mithril-stm/src/error.rs

turmelclem

LGTM 👍

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/mod.rs

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs

And create a new 'proof' sub-module where it is moved.

This will be removed when a new proof system is implemented. In the mean time it structures the code for ease of implementation later.

Instead of aggregate signature as tests are proof specific.

…r aggregation

…igner aggregation

curiecrypt

Left some minor comments, questions 😊

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T12:43:06Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs

-
-        BlsSignature::verify_aggregate(msgp.as_slice(), &vks, &sigs)?;
-        Ok(())
+        match self {


A future proof system could require a different set of inputs to be verified. Is there a way to handle this case without causing a backward compatibility issue?

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T12:48:29Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs

+}
+
+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {


Should we also include unit tests/proptests for some of the functions?
Even if we updated the tests in mod.rs, it might be worth trying all possible outputs of the functions, WDYT?

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T13:13:24Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/mod.rs

        KeyRegistration, Parameters, Signer, SingleSignature, SingleSignatureWithRegisteredParty,
        Stake,
    };
+    use crate::{AggregateSignatureType, bls_multi_signature::BlsVerificationKey};


Is there a specific reason for importing AggregateSignatureType here? Can we also do the following?

use crate::bls_multi_signature::BlsVerificationKey; use crate::merkle_tree::MerkleBatchPath; use crate::{ AggregateSignature, AggregateSignatureType, AggregationError, BasicVerifier, Clerk, CoreVerifierError, Initializer, KeyRegistration, Parameters, Signer, SingleSignature, SingleSignatureWithRegisteredParty, Stake, };

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T13:17:11Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/clerk.rs

    /// The list of merkle tree indexes is used to create a batch proof, to prove that all signatures are from eligible signers.
    ///
    /// It returns an instance of `AggregateSignature`.
    #[deprecated(since = "0.5.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures` instead")]


Do we need to update this deprecation message as well?

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T13:19:48Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/mod.rs

+                        }
                    }
+                }else{
+                    panic!("Unexpected aggregate signature type");


Is there a better way for handling this instead of panic?

curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T13:20:05Z

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/mod.rs

+                    };
+                    concatenation_proof.batch_proof = batch_proof;
+                }else{
+                    panic!("Unexpected aggregate signature type");


curiecrypt · 2025-10-06T13:36:19Z

mithril-stm/README.md

    Err(AggregationError::UsizeConversionInvalid) => {
        println!("Invalid usize conversion");
    }
+    Err(AggregationError::UnsupportedProofSystem(aggregate_signature_type)) => {


In line 129, we still call the deprecated aggregate_signatures function. Not a big deal, but it's better to update.

jpraynaud self-assigned this Sep 11, 2025

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs Fixed Show fixed Hide fixed

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from c532b82 to 39fcd60 Compare September 12, 2025 16:06

github-advanced-security bot found potential problems Sep 12, 2025

View reviewed changes

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from 39fcd60 to 9dc8a47 Compare September 15, 2025 16:26

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview September 15, 2025 16:36 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from 9dc8a47 to cf5d7fb Compare September 15, 2025 16:40

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview September 15, 2025 16:50 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from cf5d7fb to 26f6e40 Compare September 15, 2025 16:53

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview September 15, 2025 18:11 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch 2 times, most recently from b62c4d8 to 51526d9 Compare September 17, 2025 16:29

jpraynaud requested a review from Copilot September 17, 2025 16:32

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from 51526d9 to 26d6768 Compare September 18, 2025 13:12

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview September 18, 2025 13:23 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from 26d6768 to 215e64e Compare September 18, 2025 14:31

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview September 18, 2025 14:51 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

jpraynaud requested review from curiecrypt and turmelclem September 18, 2025 14:51

jpraynaud marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2025 14:51

turmelclem approved these changes Sep 25, 2025

View reviewed changes

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved

mithril-stm/src/aggregate_signature/signature.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

jpraynaud added 7 commits October 2, 2025 10:19

refactor(stm): extract concatenation proof from aggregate signature

7c7a0e5

And create a new 'proof' sub-module where it is moved.

feat(stm): make 'AggregateSignature' support multiple proof systems

27c443e

refactor(stm): move proof type encoding byte to aggregate signature

bdaf077

feat(stm): implement future proof system placeholder

c0470dc

This will be removed when a new proof system is implemented. In the mean time it structures the code for ease of implementation later.

fix(stm): clippy warnings

76b8ace

refactor(stm): make prop tests work on concatenation proof

1e16d17

Instead of aggregate signature as tests are proof specific.

fix(stm): remove unnecessary tests on bincode/serde (de)serialization

2faa479

jpraynaud added 14 commits October 2, 2025 14:52

feat(stm): implement support for multiple proof types in clerk

359a908

feat(common): re-expose 'AggregateSignatureType' from STM

707a965

feat(aggregator): add aggregate signature type in serve configuration

5c39cab

feat(aggregator): add aggregate signature type in root route

11b838b

feat(stm): implement default for 'AggregateSignature'

a9b95cc

feat(common): add support for aggregate signature type in multi signe…

a37e292

…r aggregation

feat(aggregator): add support for aggregate signature type in multi s…

a8de81d

…igner aggregation

feat(e2e): support for aggregate signature type selection

0bb62b2

feat(ci): support for aggregate signature type selection

0c202e3

feat(infa): support for aggregate signature type selection

3bef453

feat(ci): support for aggregate signature type selection

a7068ce

docs: update aggregator node documentation on wwebsite

b8803a9

feat(explorer): display aggregation type in aggregator status

acce303

wip(stm): DO NOT MERGE - activate 'future_proof_system'

94d39fe

jpraynaud force-pushed the jpraynaud/2680-stm-multiple-proof-system branch from 215e64e to 94d39fe Compare October 2, 2025 12:52

jpraynaud temporarily deployed to testing-preview October 2, 2025 13:02 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

curiecrypt reviewed Oct 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

	#[deprecated(since = "0.6.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures_with_type` instead")] // TODO: Update since version
	#[deprecated(since = "0.6.0", note = "Use `aggregate_signatures_with_type` instead")]

feat: support multiple proof systems in STM #2689

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: support multiple proof systems in STM #2689

Uh oh!

Conversation

jpraynaud commented Sep 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Content

Pre-submit checklist

Issue(s)

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Test Results

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Reviewed Changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Sep 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

turmelclem left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

curiecrypt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

curiecrypt Oct 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jpraynaud commented Sep 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Sep 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading