Impact
Possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing being included on-chain.
Since we represent uint64 values as native javascript numbers, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) uint64 values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing as invalid, due to rounding errors in large number values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network.
Similarly Lodestar may consider invalid ProposerSlashing as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network.
Patches
ChainSafe/lodestar#3977
Workarounds
Use BigInt to represent Slot and Epoch values in AttesterSlashing and ProposerSlashing objects. BigInt is too slow to be used in all Slot and Epoch cases, so we will carefully use BigInt just where necessary for consensus.
References
Impact
Possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted
AttesterSlashingorProposerSlashingbeing included on-chain.Since we represent
uint64values as native javascriptnumbers, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53)uint64values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view validAttesterSlashingorProposerSlashingas invalid, due to rounding errors in largenumbervalues. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network.Similarly Lodestar may consider invalid
ProposerSlashingas valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network.Patches
ChainSafe/lodestar#3977
Workarounds
Use
BigIntto representSlotandEpochvalues inAttesterSlashingandProposerSlashingobjects.BigIntis too slow to be used in allSlotandEpochcases, so we will carefully useBigIntjust where necessary for consensus.References