This is a follow-up to #29520, and a preparatory PR to a more thorough
change in the journalling system.
This PR hides the journal-implementation details away, so that the
statedb invokes methods like `JournalCreate`, instead of explicitly
appending journal-events in a list. This means that it's up to the
journal whether to implement it as a sequence of events or
aggregate/merge events.
This PR also makes it so that management of valid snapshots is moved
inside the journal, exposed via the methods `Snapshot() int` and
`RevertToSnapshot(revid int, s *StateDB)`.
JournalSetCode journals the setting of code: it is implicit that the
previous values were "no code" and emptyCodeHash. Therefore, we can
simplify the setCode journal.
The self-destruct journalling is a bit strange: we allow the
selfdestruct operation to be journalled several times. This makes it so
that we also are forced to store whether the account was already
destructed.
What we can do instead, is to only journal the first destruction, and
after that only journal balance-changes, but not journal the
selfdestruct itself.
This simplifies the journalling, so that internals about state
management does not leak into the journal-API.
Preimages were, for some reason, integrated into the journal management,
despite not being a consensus-critical data structure. This PR undoes
that.
---------
Co-authored-by: Martin HS <martin@swende.se>
Co-authored-by: Gary Rong <garyrong0905@gmail.com>
Currently our state journal tracks each storage update to a contract, having the ability to revert those changes to the previously set value.
For the very first modification however, it behaves a bit wonky. Reverting the update doesn't actually remove the dirty-ness of the slot, rather leaves it as "change this slot to it's original value". This can cause issues down the line with for example write witnesses needing to gather an unneeded proof.
This PR modifies the storageChange journal entry to not only track the previous value of a slot, but also whether there was any previous value at all set in the current execution context. In essence, the PR changes the semantic of storageChange so it does not simply track storage changes, rather it tracks dirty storage changes, an important distinction for being able to cleanly revert the journal item.
Co-authored-by: Péter Szilágyi <peterke@gmail.com>
The upstream libray has removed the assembly-based implementation of
keccak. We need to maintain our own library to avoid a peformance
regression.
---------
Co-authored-by: Felix Lange <fjl@twurst.com>
Co-authored-by: lightclient <lightclient@protonmail.com>
Link to spec: https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7623
---------
Co-authored-by: Marius van der Wijden <m.vanderwijden@live.de>
Co-authored-by: lightclient <14004106+lightclient@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: lightclient <lightclient@protonmail.com>
Verkle trees store the code inside the trie. This PR changes the interface to pass the code, as well as the dirty flag to tell the trie package if the code is dirty and needs to be updated. This is a no-op for the MPT and the odr trie.
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Ballet <3272758+gballet@users.noreply.github.com>
- Add error returns to Database.Reader() and NodeIterator() methods
- Introduce committed flag to prevent usage of tries after commit
- Update callers to handle new error signatures
- Add MustNodeIterator() helper for backward compatibility
Co-authored-by: rjl493456442 <garyrong0905@gmail.com>
This removes the feature where top nodes of the proof can be elided.
It was intended to be used by the LES server, to save bandwidth
when the client had already fetched parts of the state and only needed
some extra nodes to complete the proof. Alas, it never got implemented
in the client.
Co-authored-by: rjl493456442 <garyrong0905@gmail.com>
Replace panic with error return in decodeSignature to prevent crashes on
invalid inputs, and update callers to propagate the error.
Co-authored-by: DeFi Junkie <deffie.jnkiee@gmail.com>
