## 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
* 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>
## Issue Addressed
Closes https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/2327
## Proposed Changes
This is an extension of some ideas I implemented while working on `tree-states`:
- Cache the indexed attestations from blocks in the `ConsensusContext`. Previously we were re-computing them 3-4 times over.
- Clean up `import_block` by splitting each part into `import_block_XXX`.
- Move some stuff off hot paths, specifically:
- Relocate non-essential tasks that were running between receiving the payload verification status and priming the early attester cache. These tasks are moved after the cache priming:
- Attestation observation
- Validator monitor updates
- Slasher updates
- Updating the shuffling cache
- Fork choice attestation observation now happens at the end of block verification in parallel with payload verification (this seems to save 5-10ms).
- Payload verification now happens _before_ advancing the pre-state and writing it to disk! States were previously being written eagerly and adding ~20-30ms in front of verifying the execution payload. State catchup also sometimes takes ~500ms if we get a cache miss and need to rebuild the tree hash cache.
The remaining task that's taking substantial time (~20ms) is importing the block to fork choice. I _think_ this is because of pull-tips, and we should be able to optimise it out with a clever total active balance cache in the state (which would be computed in parallel with payload verification). I've decided to leave that for future work though. For now it can be observed via the new `beacon_block_processing_post_exec_pre_attestable_seconds` metric.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Part of https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/3651.
## Proposed Changes
Add a flag for enabling the light client server, which should be checked before gossip/RPC traffic is processed (e.g. https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3693, https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3711). The flag is available at runtime from `beacon_chain.config.enable_light_client_server`.
Additionally, a new method `BeaconChain::with_mutable_state_for_block` is added which I envisage being used for computing light client updates. Unfortunately its performance will be quite poor on average because it will only run quickly with access to the tree hash cache. Each slot the tree hash cache is only available for a brief window of time between the head block being processed and the state advance at 9s in the slot. When the state advance happens the cache is moved and mutated to get ready for the next slot, which makes it no longer useful for merkle proofs related to the head block. Rather than spend more time trying to optimise this I think we should continue prototyping with this code, and I'll make sure `tree-states` is ready to ship before we enable the light client server in prod (cf. https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/3206).
## Additional Info
I also fixed a bug in the implementation of `BeaconState::compute_merkle_proof` whereby the tree hash cache was moved with `.take()` but never put back with `.restore()`.
## Issue Addressed
This PR addresses partially #3651
## Proposed Changes
This PR adds the following methods:
* a new method to trait `TreeHash`, `hash_tree_leaves` which returns all the Merkle leaves of the ssz object.
* a new method to `BeaconState`: `compute_merkle_proof` which generates a specific merkle proof for given depth and index by using the `hash_tree_leaves` as leaves function.
## Additional Info
Now here is some rationale on why I decided to go down this route: adding a new function to commonly used trait is a pain but was necessary to make sure we have all merkle leaves for every object, that is why I just added `hash_tree_leaves` in the trait and not `compute_merkle_proof` as well. although it would make sense it gives us code duplication/harder review time and we just need it from one specific object in one specific usecase so not worth the effort YET. In my humble opinion.
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
New lints for rust 1.65
## Proposed Changes
Notable change is the identification or parameters that are only used in recursion
## Additional Info
na
