Update EIP-7702: 7702 validity #8845
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
c-update
|
✅ All reviewers have approved. |
|
My stance on this is:
Side question for this PR, why not use u8 for |
|
Agree sanity limits need to exist, I just think we should keep them minimal and inline with existing types.
All of these things should be checked, they just shouldn't affect the transactions validity.
We bound |
| ```python | ||
| assert auth.chain_id < 2**256 | ||
| assert auth.nonce < 2**64 | ||
| assert len(auth.address) == 20 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't it be len(auth.address)<=20 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, address is a fixed length item.
Co-authored-by: Mario Vega <[email protected]>
Check (in the txpool and in the main code) that an EIP-7702 transaction is [valid](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7702#set-code-transaction), namely that: - `to != nil` - `len(authorization_list) != 0` - `authorization.chain_id` is `uint256` - `authorization.nonce` is `uint64` - `authorization.address` is `bytes20` - `authorization.y_parity == 0 || authorization.y_parity == 1` - `authorization.r` is `uint256` - `authorization.s` is `uint256` and `authorization.s <= secp256k1n/2` This PR doesn't implement ethereum/EIPs#8865 or ethereum/EIPs#8845
Check (in the txpool and in the main code) that an EIP-7702 transaction is [valid](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7702#set-code-transaction), namely that: - `to != nil` - `len(authorization_list) != 0` - `authorization.chain_id` is `uint256` - `authorization.nonce` is `uint64` - `authorization.address` is `bytes20` - `authorization.y_parity == 0 || authorization.y_parity == 1` - `authorization.r` is `uint256` - `authorization.s` is `uint256` and `authorization.s <= secp256k1n/2` This PR doesn't implement ethereum/EIPs#8865 or ethereum/EIPs#8845
|
Seems like there was good support for this in ACDE 196. Still need to look more into constraining the |
|
|
||
| ```python | ||
| assert auth.chain_id < 2**256 | ||
| assert auth.nonce < 2**64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have a slight nit about this. (Sorry, just noticed after-merge). By https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2681 should this not be 2**64 - 1? Or is this checkout outside tx validity, but instead inside EVM?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is, but specific to the tx sender. The idea here is to only give numeric boundaries here and leave interpretation to other subsystems.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is, but specific to the tx sender.
The nonce of authority is also incremented during delegation setting, so it is important to check nonce < 2**64 - 1 here.
I've made this change in #8905
Implement ethereum/EIPs#8845, which is part of [pectra-devnet-4](https://notes.ethereum.org/@ethpandaops/pectra-devnet-4)
Repost from #8840 as it should not have automatically merged.