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

FC validate_inclusion_lists #9159

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: focil
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gfukushima
Copy link
Contributor

PR Description

This PR add the implementation of validate_inclusion_lists to fork choice. Although it's not being used yet, this is rather a useful to check to have and to perform up on block import.

Fixed Issue(s)

Fixes #9097

Documentation

  • I thought about documentation and added the doc-change-required label to this PR if updates are required.

Changelog

  • I thought about adding a changelog entry, and added one if I deemed necessary.

Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
@mehdi-aouadi
Copy link
Contributor

Yes this check will be performed when we import a block on slot N+1. We check that the ILs we've collected from the p2p network are included in the new block's execution payload.
From EIP-7805 attester section:

Attesters
Slot N+1, t=4s: Attesters monitor the P2P network for the proposer’s block. Upon detecting it, they verify whether all transactions from their stored ILs are included in the proposer’s execution payload, except for ILs whose sender has equivocated. Based on their frozen view of the ILs from t=9s in the previous slot, attesters check if the execution payload satisfies IL conditions. This is done either by confirming that all transactions are present or by determining if any missing transactions are invalid when appended to the end of the payload. In such cases, attesters use the EL to perform nonce and balance checks to validate the missing transactions and check whether there is enough space in the block to include the transaction(s).

Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fukushima <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@mehdi-aouadi mehdi-aouadi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM
I guess we can merge it for now ans keep an eye on the spec since we'd need to check if any missing transaction is invalid by calling the EL but it's not clear yet how we will do that.

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.

2 participants