🐛 Bug · 🟠 High · Confidence: 98%
File: native/zero-c/src/program_graph_store_binary.c
Location: binary_verify_graph_metadata
What's wrong
The function compares the provided module_hash against store->graph.graph_hash instead of the stored module hash, causing a false failure. The problematic line is: if (!binary_text_eq(module_hash, store->graph.graph_hash)) return binary_diag(diag, path, "repository graph module hash does not match stored graph", store->graph.graph_hash);
Suggested fix
Compare against store->graph.module_hash instead of store->graph.graph_hash. For example:
if (!binary_text_eq(module_hash, store->graph.module_hash))
return binary_diag(diag, path, "repository graph module hash does not match stored graph", store->graph.module_hash);
About this report
This finding was generated by an automated audit tool using Llama 3.3 70B + verification passes.
Only findings with ≥92% confidence that passed both LLM self-verification and line reference
verification are reported. False positives are still possible — please verify before acting.
🐛 Bug · 🟠 High · Confidence: 98%
File:
native/zero-c/src/program_graph_store_binary.cLocation:
binary_verify_graph_metadataWhat's wrong
The function compares the provided
module_hashagainststore->graph.graph_hashinstead of the stored module hash, causing a false failure. The problematic line is:if (!binary_text_eq(module_hash, store->graph.graph_hash)) return binary_diag(diag, path, "repository graph module hash does not match stored graph", store->graph.graph_hash);Suggested fix
Compare against
store->graph.module_hashinstead ofstore->graph.graph_hash. For example:About this report
This finding was generated by an automated audit tool using Llama 3.3 70B + verification passes.
Only findings with ≥92% confidence that passed both LLM self-verification and line reference
verification are reported. False positives are still possible — please verify before acting.