* 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>
Currently there is a race between receiving blocks and receiving light client optimistic updates (in unstable), which results in processing errors. This is a continuation of PR #3693 and seeks to progress on issue #3651
Add the parent_root to ReprocessQueueMessage::BlockImported so we can remove blocks from queue when a block arrives that has the same parent root. We use the parent root as opposed to the block_root because the LightClientOptimisticUpdate does not contain the block_root.
If light_client_optimistic_update.attested_header.canonical_root() != head_block.message().parent_root() then we queue the update. Otherwise we process immediately.
michaelsproul came up with this idea.
The code was heavily based off of the attestation reprocessing.
I have not properly tested this to see if it works as intended.
* 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
We recently ran a large-block experiment on the testnet and plan to do a further experiment on mainnet.
Although the metrics recovered from lighthouse nodes were quite useful, I think we could do with greater resolution in the block delay metrics and get some specific values for each block (currently these can be lost to large exponential histogram buckets).
This PR increases the resolution of the block delay histogram buckets, but also introduces a new metric which records the last block delay. Depending on the polling resolution of the metric server, we can lose some block delay information, however it will always give us a specific value and we will not lose exact data based on poor resolution histogram buckets.
## Issue Addressed
Currently there is a race between receiving blocks and receiving light client optimistic updates (in unstable), which results in processing errors. This is a continuation of PR #3693 and seeks to progress on issue #3651
## Proposed Changes
Add the parent_root to ReprocessQueueMessage::BlockImported so we can remove blocks from queue when a block arrives that has the same parent root. We use the parent root as opposed to the block_root because the LightClientOptimisticUpdate does not contain the block_root.
If light_client_optimistic_update.attested_header.canonical_root() != head_block.message().parent_root() then we queue the update. Otherwise we process immediately.
## Additional Info
michaelsproul came up with this idea.
The code was heavily based off of the attestation reprocessing.
I have not properly tested this to see if it works as intended.
* 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
We recently ran a large-block experiment on the testnet and plan to do a further experiment on mainnet.
Although the metrics recovered from lighthouse nodes were quite useful, I think we could do with greater resolution in the block delay metrics and get some specific values for each block (currently these can be lost to large exponential histogram buckets).
This PR increases the resolution of the block delay histogram buckets, but also introduces a new metric which records the last block delay. Depending on the polling resolution of the metric server, we can lose some block delay information, however it will always give us a specific value and we will not lose exact data based on poor resolution histogram buckets.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Myself and others (#3678) have observed that when running with lots of validators (e.g., 1000s) the cardinality is too much for Prometheus. I've seen Prometheus instances just grind to a halt when we turn the validator monitor on for our testnet validators (we have 10,000s of Goerli validators). Additionally, the debug log volume can get very high with one log per validator, per attestation.
To address this, the `bn --validator-monitor-individual-tracking-threshold <INTEGER>` flag has been added to *disable* per-validator (i.e., non-aggregated) metrics/logging once the validator monitor exceeds the threshold of validators. The default value is `64`, which is a finger-to-the-wind value. I don't actually know the value at which Prometheus starts to become overwhelmed, but I've seen it work with ~64 validators and I've seen it *not* work with 1000s of validators. A default of `64` seems like it will result in a breaking change to users who are running millions of dollars worth of validators whilst resulting in a no-op for low-validator-count users. I'm open to changing this number, though.
Additionally, this PR starts collecting aggregated Prometheus metrics (e.g., total count of head hits across all validators), so that high-validator-count validators still have some interesting metrics. We already had logging for aggregated values, so nothing has been added there.
I've opted to make this a breaking change since it can be rather damaging to your Prometheus instance to accidentally enable the validator monitor with large numbers of validators. I've crashed a Prometheus instance myself and had a report from another user who's done the same thing.
## Additional Info
NA
## Breaking Changes Note
A new label has been added to the validator monitor Prometheus metrics: `total`. This label tracks the aggregated metrics of all validators in the validator monitor (as opposed to each validator being tracking individually using its pubkey as the label).
Additionally, a new flag has been added to the Beacon Node: `--validator-monitor-individual-tracking-threshold`. The default value is `64`, which means that when the validator monitor is tracking more than 64 validators then it will stop tracking per-validator metrics and only track the `all_validators` metric. It will also stop logging per-validator logs and only emit aggregated logs (the exception being that exit and slashing logs are always emitted).
These changes were introduced in #3728 to address issues with untenable Prometheus cardinality and log volume when using the validator monitor with high validator counts (e.g., 1000s of validators). Users with less than 65 validators will see no change in behavior (apart from the added `all_validators` metric). Users with more than 65 validators who wish to maintain the previous behavior can set something like `--validator-monitor-individual-tracking-threshold 999999`.
## 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.
- there was a bug in responding range blob requests where we would incorrectly label the first slot of an epoch as a non-skipped slot if it were skipped. this bug did not exist in the code for responding to block range request because the logic error was mitigated by defensive coding elsewhere
- there was a bug where a block received during range sync without a corresponding blob (and vice versa) was incorrectly interpreted as a stream termination
- RPC size limit fixes.
- Our blob cache was dead locking so I removed use of it for now.
- Because of our change in finalized sync batch size from 2 to 1 and our transition to using exact epoch boundaries for batches (rather than one slot past the epoch boundary), we need to sync finalized sync to 2 epochs + 1 slot past our peer's finalized slot in order to finalize the chain locally.
- use fork context bytes in rpc methods on both the server and client side
## Issue Addressed
While testing withdrawals with @ethDreamer we noticed lighthouse is sending empty batches when an error occurs. As LH peer receiving this, we would consider this a low tolerance action because the peer is claiming the batch is right and is empty.
## Proposed Changes
If any kind of error occurs, send a error response instead
## Additional Info
Right now we don't handle such thing as a partial batch with an error. If an error is received, the whole batch is discarded. Because of this it makes little sense to send partial batches that end with an error, so it's better to do the proposed solution instead of sending empty batches.
## 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
#3704
## Proposed Changes
Adds is_syncing_finalized: bool parameter for block verification functions. Sets the payload_verification_status to Optimistic if is_syncing_finalized is true. Uses SyncState in NetworkGlobals in BeaconProcessor to retrieve the syncing status.
## Additional Info
I could implement FinalizedSignatureVerifiedBlock if you think it would be nicer.
## Issue Addressed
Partially addresses #3651
## Proposed Changes
Adds server-side support for light_client_bootstrap_v1 topic
## Additional Info
This PR, creates each time a bootstrap without using cache, I do not know how necessary a cache is in this case as this topic is not supposed to be called frequently and IMHO we can just prevent abuse by using the limiter, but let me know what you think or if there is any caveat to this, or if it is necessary only for the sake of good practice.
Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
