via fix da: add commitment revalidation on Celestia blob retrieval

[romanornr]

What ❔

Adds cryptographic verification of blob data retrieved from Celestia DA layer to prevent state corruption from malicious or faulty DA nodes

Why ❔

When retrieving blobs via get_inclusion_data(), the commitment was not revalidated against the blob content. A bad DA node could return different data than originally committed leading to:

• State corruption in L2
• Potential double-spend through altered withdrawal data
• ZK proof verification failures

Build is failing tho
Environment issue rocksdb locally on my pc

Checklist

• PR title corresponds to the body of PR (we generate changelog entries from PRs).
• Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
• Documentation comments have been added / updated.
• Code has been formatted via zkstack dev fmt and zkstack dev lint.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @romanornr, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request implements a crucial security enhancement by adding cryptographic verification to all blob data retrieved from the Celestia DA layer. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of the data, safeguarding the L2 state from potential corruption or manipulation by compromised DA nodes, thereby bolstering the overall security and reliability of the system.

Highlights

• Cryptographic Verification: Introduces cryptographic verification for blob data retrieved from the Celestia Data Availability (DA) layer.
• Enhanced Security: Prevents state corruption, potential double-spend vulnerabilities, and ZK proof verification failures that could arise from malicious or faulty DA nodes.
• New Verification Function: Adds a verify_blob_commitment function to the CelestiaClient to compute and compare data commitments.
• Comprehensive Testing: Includes new unit tests to ensure the determinism, uniqueness, and correctness of the commitment verification logic.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an important security enhancement by adding cryptographic verification for blobs retrieved from the Celestia DA layer. The core logic for commitment verification is sound. However, I've identified a few areas for improvement. The new tests for the verification logic don't directly test the new function, making them less effective. I've suggested a small refactor to the verification function to improve its testability and provided updated tests. Additionally, there's a minor issue with an unused import.