* add capella gossip boiler plate
* get everything compiling
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <sean@sigmaprime.io
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
* small cleanup
* small cleanup
* cargo fix + some test cleanup
* improve block production
* add fixme for potential panic
Co-authored-by: Mark Mackey <mark@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
fixes lints from the last rust release
## Proposed Changes
Fix the lints, most of the lints by `clippy::question-mark` are false positives in the form of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/9518 so it's allowed for now
## Additional Info
## Issue Addressed
https://github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs/pull/222
## Proposed Changes
Update Lighthouse's randao verification API to match the `beacon-APIs` spec. We implemented the API before spec stabilisation, and it changed slightly in the course of review.
Rather than a flag `verify_randao` taking a boolean value, the new API uses a `skip_randao_verification` flag which takes no argument. The new spec also requires the randao reveal to be present and equal to the point-at-infinity when `skip_randao_verification` is set.
I've also updated the `POST /lighthouse/analysis/block_rewards` API to take blinded blocks as input, as the execution payload is irrelevant and we may want to assess blocks produced by builders.
## Additional Info
This is technically a breaking change, but seeing as I suspect I'm the only one using these parameters/APIs, I think we're OK to include this in a patch release.
## Issue Addressed
Fixes a potential regression in memory fragmentation identified by @paulhauner here: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3371#discussion_r931770045.
## Proposed Changes
Immediately allocate a vector with sufficient size to hold all decoded elements in SSZ decoding. The `size_hint` is derived from the range iterator here:
2983235650/consensus/ssz/src/decode/impls.rs (L489)
## Additional Info
I'd like to test this out on some infra for a substantial duration to see if it affects total fragmentation.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
I've noticed that our block hashing times increase significantly after the merge. I did some flamegraph-ing and noticed that we're allocating a `Vec` for each byte of each execution payload transaction. This seems like unnecessary work and a bit of a fragmentation risk.
This PR switches to `SmallVec<[u8; 32]>` for the packed encoding of `TreeHash`. I believe this is a nice simple optimisation with no downside.
### Benchmarking
These numbers were computed using #3580 on my desktop (i7 hex-core). You can see a bit of noise in the numbers, that's probably just my computer doing other things. Generally I found this change takes the time from 10-11ms to 8-9ms. I can also see all the allocations disappear from flamegraph.
This is the block being benchmarked: https://beaconcha.in/slot/4704236
#### Before
```
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 980: 10.553003ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 981: 10.563737ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 982: 10.646352ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 983: 10.628532ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 984: 10.552112ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 985: 10.587778ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 986: 10.640526ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 987: 10.587243ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 988: 10.554748ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 989: 10.551111ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 990: 11.559031ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 991: 11.944827ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 992: 10.554308ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 993: 11.043397ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 994: 11.043315ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 995: 11.207711ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 996: 11.056246ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 997: 11.049706ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 998: 11.432449ms
[2022-09-15T21:44:19Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 999: 11.149617ms
```
#### After
```
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 980: 14.011653ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 981: 8.925314ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 982: 8.849563ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 983: 8.893689ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 984: 8.902964ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 985: 8.942067ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 986: 8.907088ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 987: 9.346101ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 988: 8.96142ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 989: 9.366437ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 990: 9.809334ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 991: 9.541561ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 992: 11.143518ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 993: 10.821181ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 994: 9.855973ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 995: 10.941006ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 996: 9.596155ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 997: 9.121739ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 998: 9.090019ms
[2022-09-15T21:41:49Z INFO lcli::block_root] Run 999: 9.071885ms
```
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
I have observed scenarios on Goerli where Lighthouse was receiving attestations which reference the same, un-cached shuffling on multiple threads at the same time. Lighthouse was then loading the same state from database and determining the shuffling on multiple threads at the same time. This is unnecessary load on the disk and RAM.
This PR modifies the shuffling cache so that each entry can be either:
- A committee
- A promise for a committee (i.e., a `crossbeam_channel::Receiver`)
Now, in the scenario where we have thread A and thread B simultaneously requesting the same un-cached shuffling, we will have the following:
1. Thread A will take the write-lock on the shuffling cache, find that there's no cached committee and then create a "promise" (a `crossbeam_channel::Sender`) for a committee before dropping the write-lock.
1. Thread B will then be allowed to take the write-lock for the shuffling cache and find the promise created by thread A. It will block the current thread waiting for thread A to fulfill that promise.
1. Thread A will load the state from disk, obtain the shuffling, send it down the channel, insert the entry into the cache and then continue to verify the attestation.
1. Thread B will then receive the shuffling from the receiver, be un-blocked and then continue to verify the attestation.
In the case where thread A fails to generate the shuffling and drops the sender, the next time that specific shuffling is requested we will detect that the channel is disconnected and return a `None` entry for that shuffling. This will cause the shuffling to be re-calculated.
## Additional Info
NA
## Issue Addressed
Add a flag that can increase count unrealized strictness, defaults to false
## Proposed Changes
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: sean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
When requesting an index which is not active during `start_epoch`, Lighthouse returns:
```
curl "http://localhost:5052/lighthouse/analysis/attestation_performance/999999999?start_epoch=100000&end_epoch=100000"
```
```json
{
"code": 500,
"message": "INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR: ParticipationCache(InvalidValidatorIndex(999999999))",
"stacktraces": []
}
```
This error occurs even when the index in question becomes active before `end_epoch` which is undesirable as it can prevent larger queries from completing.
## Proposed Changes
In the event the index is out-of-bounds (has not yet been activated), simply return all fields as `false`:
```
-> curl "http://localhost:5052/lighthouse/analysis/attestation_performance/999999999?start_epoch=100000&end_epoch=100000"
```
```json
[
{
"index": 999999999,
"epochs": {
"100000": {
"active": false,
"head": false,
"target": false,
"source": false
}
}
}
]
```
By doing this, we cover the case where a validator becomes active sometime between `start_epoch` and `end_epoch`.
## Additional Info
Note that this error only occurs for epochs after the Altair hard fork.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Adds more `debug` logging to help troubleshoot invalid execution payload blocks. I was doing some of this recently and found it to be challenging.
With this PR we should be able to grep `Invalid execution payload` and get one-liners that will show the block, slot and details about the proposer.
I also changed the log in `process_invalid_execution_payload` since it was a little misleading; the `block_root` wasn't necessary the block which had an invalid payload.
## Additional Info
NA
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
This PR is motivated by a recent consensus failure in Geth where it returned `INVALID` for an `VALID` block. Without this PR, the only way to recover is by re-syncing Lighthouse. Whilst ELs "shouldn't have consensus failures", in reality it's something that we can expect from time to time due to the complex nature of Ethereum. Being able to recover easily will help the network recover and EL devs to troubleshoot.
The risk introduced with this PR is that genuinely INVALID payloads get a "second chance" at being imported. I believe the DoS risk here is negligible since LH needs to be restarted in order to re-process the payload. Furthermore, there's no reason to think that a well-performing EL will accept a truly invalid payload the second-time-around.
## Additional Info
This implementation has the following intricacies:
1. Instead of just resetting *invalid* payloads to optimistic, we'll also reset *valid* payloads. This is an artifact of our existing implementation.
1. We will only reset payload statuses when we detect an invalid payload present in `proto_array`
- This helps save us from forgetting that all our blocks are valid in the "best case scenario" where there are no invalid blocks.
1. If we fail to revert the payload statuses we'll log a `CRIT` and just continue with a `proto_array` that *does not* have reverted payload statuses.
- The code to revert statuses needs to deal with balances and proposer-boost, so it's a failure point. This is a defensive measure to avoid introducing new show-stopping bugs to LH.
