Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge go-ethereum Archanes (v1.13.4) #159

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023
Merged

Conversation

ajsutton
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Pulls in upstream changes from go-ethereum Archanes (v1.13.4) release.

karalabe and others added 18 commits October 12, 2023 14:39
…306)

This change addresses an issue in snap sync, specifically when the entire sync process can be halted due to an encountered empty storage range.

Currently, on the snap sync client side, the response to an empty (partial) storage range is discarded as a non-delivery. However, this response can be a valid response, when the particular range requested does not contain any slots.

For instance, consider a large contract where the entire key space is divided into 16 chunks, and there are no available slots in the last chunk [0xf] -> [end]. When the node receives a request for this particular range, the response includes:

    The proof with origin [0xf]
    A nil storage slot set

If we simply discard this response, the finalization of the last range will be skipped, halting the entire sync process indefinitely. The test case TestSyncWithUnevenStorage can reproduce the scenario described above.

In addition, this change also defines the common variables MaxAddress and MaxHash.
* build: upgrade to golang 1.21.2

* build: verify checksums via tool

* deps: upgrade go to 1.21.3

* build: move more build metadata into checksum file

* build: move gobootsrc to checksums
During snap-sync, we request ranges of values: either a range of accounts or a range of storage values. For any large trie, e.g. the main account trie or a large storage trie, we cannot fetch everything at once.

Short version; we split it up and request in multiple stages. To do so, we use an origin field, to say "Give me all storage key/values where key > 0x20000000000000000". When the server fulfils this, the server provides the first key after origin, let's say 0x2e030000000000000 -- never providing the exact origin. However, the client-side needs to be able to verify that the 0x2e03.. indeed is the first one after 0x2000.., and therefore the attached proof concerns the origin, not the first key.

So, short-short version: the left-hand side of the proof relates to the origin, and is free-standing from the first leaf.

On the other hand, (pun intended), the right-hand side, there's no such 'gap' between "along what path does the proof walk" and the last provided leaf. The proof must prove the last element (unless there are no elements).

Therefore, we can simplify the semantics for trie.VerifyRangeProof by removing an argument. This doesn't make much difference in practice, but makes it so that we can remove some tests. The reason I am raising this is that the upcoming stacktrie-based verifier does not support such fancy features as standalone right-hand borders.
* cmd, core, ethdb: enable Pebble on 32 bits and OpenBSD too

* ethdb/pebble: use Pebble's internal constant calculation
Updates execution-spec-tests to 1.0.5: https://github.com/ethereum/execution-spec-tests/releases/tag/v1.0.5, switching to develop which contains Cancun tests (which are also enabled in this change).
This change fixes #28355, where eth_getProof failed to return the correct codehash under certain conditions. This PR changes the logic to unconditionally look up the codehash, and also adds some more tests.
This changes fixes a bug in the fetcher, where the timeout for how long to remember underpriced transaction was erroneously compared, and the timeout never hit.
---------

Co-authored-by: Martin Holst Swende <martin@swende.se>
@ajsutton ajsutton marked this pull request as ready for review October 23, 2023 03:32
Copy link
Collaborator

@protolambda protolambda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, no major changes. Added a commit to update the fork-diff with the accurate base commit of upstream

@protolambda protolambda merged commit 5023660 into optimism Oct 24, 2023
4 of 5 checks passed
@protolambda protolambda deleted the aj/upstream-1.13.4 branch October 24, 2023 15:04
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.

8 participants