## 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.
## 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
NA
## Proposed Changes
This is a *potentially* contentious change, but I find it annoying that the validator monitor logs `WARN` and `ERRO` for imperfect attestations. Perfect attestation performance is unachievable (don't believe those photo-shopped beauty magazines!) since missed and poorly-packed blocks by other validators will reduce your performance.
When the validator monitor is on with 10s or more validators, I find the logs are washed out with ERROs that are not worth investigating. I suspect that users who really want to know if validators are missing attestations can do so by matching the content of the log, rather than the log level.
I'm open to feedback about this, especially from anyone who is relying on the current log levels.
## Additional Info
NA
## Breaking Changes Notes
The validator monitor will no longer emit `WARN` and `ERRO` logs for sub-optimal attestation performance. The logs will now be emitted at `INFO` level. This change was introduced to avoid cluttering the `WARN` and `ERRO` logs with alerts that are frequently triggered by the actions of other network participants (e.g., a missed block) and require no action from the user.
## 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>
