## Issue Addressed
Which issue # does this PR address?
https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/3669
## Proposed Changes
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
- A new API to fetch fork choice data, as specified [here](https://github.com/ethereum/beacon-APIs/pull/232)
- A new integration test to test the new API
## Additional Info
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
- `extra_data` field specified in the beacon-API spec is not implemented, please let me know if I should instead.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
- Implements https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3290/
- Bumps `ef-tests` to [v1.3.0-rc.4](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-spec-tests/releases/tag/v1.3.0-rc.4).
The `CountRealizedFull` concept has been removed and the `--count-unrealized-full` and `--count-unrealized` BN flags now do nothing but log a `WARN` when used.
## Database Migration Debt
This PR removes the `best_justified_checkpoint` from fork choice. This field is persisted on-disk and the correct way to go about this would be to make a DB migration to remove the field. However, in this PR I've simply stubbed out the value with a junk value. I've taken this approach because if we're going to do a DB migration I'd love to remove the `Option`s around the justified and finalized checkpoints on `ProtoNode` whilst we're at it. Those options were added in #2822 which was included in Lighthouse v2.1.0. The options were only put there to handle the migration and they've been set to `Some` ever since v2.1.0. There's no reason to keep them as options anymore.
I started adding the DB migration to this branch but I started to feel like I was bloating this rather critical PR with nice-to-haves. I've kept the partially-complete migration [over in my repo](https://github.com/paulhauner/lighthouse/tree/fc-pr-18-migration) so we can pick it up after this PR is merged.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Sets the mainnet Capella fork epoch as per https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3300
## Additional Info
I expect the `ef_tests` to fail until we get a compatible consensus spec tests release.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
When producing a block from a builder, there are two points where we could consider the block "broadcast":
1. When the blinded block is published to the builder.
2. When the un-blinded block is published to the P2P network (this is always *after* the previous step).
Our logging for late block broadcasts was using (2) for builder-blocks, which was creating a lot of false-positive logs. This is because the builder publishes the block on the P2P network themselves before returning it to us and we perform (2). For clarity, the logs were false-positives because we claim that the block was published late by us when it was actually published earlier by the builder.
This PR changes our logging behavior so we do our logging at (1) instead. It also updates our metrics for block broadcast to distinguish between local and builder blocks. I believe the metrics change will be natively compatible with existing Grafana dashboards.
## Additional Info
One could argue that the builder *should* return the block to us faster, however that's not the case. I think it's more important that we don't desensitize users with false-positives.
## Proposed Changes
Two tiny updates to satisfy Clippy 1.68
Plus refactoring of the `http_api` into less complex types so the compiler can chew and digest them more easily.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
Cleans up all the remnants of 4844 in capella. This makes sure when 4844 is reviewed there is nothing we are missing because it got included here
## Proposed Changes
drop a bomb on every 4844 thing
## Additional Info
Merge process I did (locally) is as follows:
- squash merge to produce one commit
- in new branch off unstable with the squashed commit create a `git revert HEAD` commit
- merge that new branch onto 4844 with `--strategy ours`
- compare local 4844 to remote 4844 and make sure the diff is empty
- enjoy
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
* Modify comment to only include 4844
Capella only modifies per epoch processing by adding
`process_historical_summaries_update`, which does not change the realization of
justification or finality.
Whilst 4844 does not currently modify realization, the spec is not yet final
enough to say that it never will.
* Clarify address change verification comment
The verification of the address change doesn't really have anything to do with
the current epoch. I think this was just a copy-paste from a function like
`verify_exit`.
* Add extra encoding/decoding tests
* Remove TODO
The method LGTM
* Remove `FreeAttestation`
This is an ancient relic, I'm surprised it still existed!
* Add paranoid check for eip4844 code
This is not technically necessary, but I think it's nice to be explicit about
EIP4844 consensus code for the time being.
* Reduce big-O complexity of address change pruning
I'm not sure this is *actually* useful, but it might come in handy if we see a
ton of address changes at the fork boundary. I know the devops team have been
testing with ~100k changes, so maybe this will help in that case.
* Revert "Reduce big-O complexity of address change pruning"
This reverts commit e7d93e6cc7cf1b92dd5a9e1966ce47d4078121eb.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Description
We were missing an edge case when checking to see if a block is a descendant of the finalized checkpoint. This edge case is described for one of the tests in this PR:
a119edc739/consensus/proto_array/src/proto_array_fork_choice.rs (L1018-L1047)
This bug presented itself in the following mainnet log:
```
Jan 26 15:12:42.841 ERRO Unable to validate attestation error: MissingBeaconState(0x7c30cb80ec3d4ec624133abfa70e4c6cfecfca456bfbbbff3393e14e5b20bf25), peer_id: 16Uiu2HAm8RPRciXJYtYc5c3qtCRdrZwkHn2BXN3XP1nSi1gxHYit, type: "unaggregated", slot: Slot(5660161), beacon_block_root: 0x4a45e59da7cb9487f4836c83bdd1b741b4f31c67010c7ae343fa6771b3330489
```
Here the BN is rejecting an attestation because of a "missing beacon state". Whilst it was correct to reject the attestation, it should have rejected it because it attests to a block that conflicts with finality rather than claiming that the database is inconsistent.
The block that this attestation points to (`0x4a45`) is block `C` in the above diagram. It is a non-canonical block in the first slot of an epoch that conflicts with the finalized checkpoint. Due to our lazy pruning of proto array, `0x4a45` was still present in proto-array. Our missed edge-case in [`ForkChoice::is_descendant_of_finalized`](38514c07f2/consensus/fork_choice/src/fork_choice.rs (L1375-L1379)) would have indicated to us that the block is a descendant of the finalized block. Therefore, we would have accepted the attestation thinking that it attests to a descendant of the finalized *checkpoint*.
Since we didn't have the shuffling for this erroneously processed block, we attempted to read its state from the database. This failed because we prune states from the database by keeping track of the tips of the chain and iterating back until we find a finalized block. This would have deleted `C` from the database, hence the `MissingBeaconState` error.
* Add first efforts at broadcast
* Tidy
* Move broadcast code to client
* Progress with broadcast impl
* Rename to address change
* Fix compile errors
* Use `while` loop
* Tidy
* Flip broadcast condition
* Switch to forgetting individual indices
* Always broadcast when the node starts
* Refactor into two functions
* Add testing
* Add another test
* Tidy, add more testing
* Tidy
* Add test, rename enum
* Rename enum again
* Tidy
* Break loop early
* Add V15 schema migration
* Bump schema version
* Progress with migration
* Update beacon_node/client/src/address_change_broadcast.rs
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
* Fix typo in function name
---------
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
* Use Local Payload if More Profitable than Builder
* Rename clone -> clone_from_ref
* Minimize Clones of GetPayloadResponse
* Cleanup & Fix Tests
* Added Tests for Payload Choice by Profit
* Fix Outdated Comments
## Proposed Changes
Clippy 1.67.0 put us on blast for the size of some of our errors, most of them written by me ( 👀 ). This PR shrinks the size of `BeaconChainError` by dropping some extraneous info and boxing an inner error which should only occur infrequently anyway.
For the `AttestationSlashInfo` and `BlockSlashInfo` I opted to ignore the lint as they are always used in a `Result<A, Info>` where `A` is a similar size. This means they don't bloat the size of the `Result`, so it's a bit annoying for Clippy to report this as an issue.
I also chose to ignore `clippy::uninlined-format-args` because I think the benefit-to-churn ratio is too low. E.g. sometimes we have long identifiers in `format!` args and IMO the non-inlined form is easier to read:
```rust
// I prefer this...
format!(
"{} did {} to {}",
REALLY_LONG_CONSTANT_NAME,
ANOTHER_REALLY_LONG_CONSTANT_NAME,
regular_long_identifier_name
);
// To this
format!("{REALLY_LONG_CONSTANT_NAME} did {ANOTHER_REALLY_LONG_CONSTANT_NAME} to {regular_long_identifier_name}");
```
I tried generating an automatic diff with `cargo clippy --fix` but it came out at:
```
250 files changed, 1209 insertions(+), 1469 deletions(-)
```
Which seems like a bad idea when we'd have to back-merge it to `capella` and `eip4844` 😱
* Use eth1_withdrawal_credential in Some Test States
* Update beacon_node/genesis/src/interop.rs
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
* Update beacon_node/genesis/src/interop.rs
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
* Increase validator sizes
* Pick next sync committee message
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
* Import BLS to execution changes before Capella
* Test for BLS to execution change HTTP API
* Pack BLS to execution changes in LIFO order
* Remove unused var
* Clippy
* add historical summaries
* fix tree hash caching, disable the sanity slots test with fake crypto
* add ssz static HistoricalSummary
* only store historical summaries after capella
* Teach `UpdatePattern` about Capella
* Tidy EF tests
* Clippy
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io>
## Issue Addressed
Recent discussions with other client devs about optimistic sync have revealed a conceptual issue with the optimisation implemented in #3738. In designing that feature I failed to consider that the execution node checks the `blockHash` of the execution payload before responding with `SYNCING`, and that omitting this check entirely results in a degradation of the full node's validation. A node omitting the `blockHash` checks could be tricked by a supermajority of validators into following an invalid chain, something which is ordinarily impossible.
## Proposed Changes
I've added verification of the `payload.block_hash` in Lighthouse. In case of failure we log a warning and fall back to verifying the payload with the execution client.
I've used our existing dependency on `ethers_core` for RLP support, and a new dependency on Parity's `triehash` crate for the Merkle patricia trie. Although the `triehash` crate is currently unmaintained it seems like our best option at the moment (it is also used by Reth, and requires vastly less boilerplate than Parity's generic `trie-root` library).
Block hash verification is pretty quick, about 500us per block on my machine (mainnet).
The optimistic finalized sync feature can be disabled using `--disable-optimistic-finalized-sync` which forces full verification with the EL.
## Additional Info
This PR also introduces a new dependency on our [`metastruct`](https://github.com/sigp/metastruct) library, which was perfectly suited to the RLP serialization method. There will likely be changes as `metastruct` grows, but I think this is a good way to start dogfooding it.
I took inspiration from some Parity and Reth code while writing this, and have preserved the relevant license headers on the files containing code that was copied and modified.
## Proposed Changes
With proposer boosting implemented (#2822) we have an opportunity to re-org out late blocks.
This PR adds three flags to the BN to control this behaviour:
* `--disable-proposer-reorgs`: turn aggressive re-orging off (it's on by default).
* `--proposer-reorg-threshold N`: attempt to orphan blocks with less than N% of the committee vote. If this parameter isn't set then N defaults to 20% when the feature is enabled.
* `--proposer-reorg-epochs-since-finalization N`: only attempt to re-org late blocks when the number of epochs since finalization is less than or equal to N. The default is 2 epochs, meaning re-orgs will only be attempted when the chain is finalizing optimally.
For safety Lighthouse will only attempt a re-org under very specific conditions:
1. The block being proposed is 1 slot after the canonical head, and the canonical head is 1 slot after its parent. i.e. at slot `n + 1` rather than building on the block from slot `n` we build on the block from slot `n - 1`.
2. The current canonical head received less than N% of the committee vote. N should be set depending on the proposer boost fraction itself, the fraction of the network that is believed to be applying it, and the size of the largest entity that could be hoarding votes.
3. The current canonical head arrived after the attestation deadline from our perspective. This condition was only added to support suppression of forkchoiceUpdated messages, but makes intuitive sense.
4. The block is being proposed in the first 2 seconds of the slot. This gives it time to propagate and receive the proposer boost.
## Additional Info
For the initial idea and background, see: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2353#issuecomment-950238004
There is also a specification for this feature here: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3034
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pawan <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Implementing the light_client_gossip topics but I'm not there yet.
Which issue # does this PR address?
Partially #3651
## Proposed Changes
Add light client gossip topics.
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
I'm going to Implement light_client_finality_update and light_client_optimistic_update gossip topics. Currently I've attempted the former and I'm seeking feedback.
## Additional Info
I've only implemented the light_client_finality_update topic because I wanted to make sure I was on the correct path. Also checking that the gossiped LightClientFinalityUpdate is the same as the locally constructed one is not implemented because caching the updates will make this much easier. Could someone give me some feedback on this please?
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: GeemoCandama <104614073+GeemoCandama@users.noreply.github.com>
