Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Merged by Bors] - Fix rpc limits version 2 #3146

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

pawanjay176
Copy link
Member

Issue Addressed

N/A

Proposed Changes

#3133 changed the rpc type limits to be fork aware i.e. if our current fork based on wall clock slot is Altair, then we apply only altair rpc type limits. This is a bug because phase0 blocks can still be sent over rpc and phase 0 block minimum size is smaller than altair block minimum size. So a phase0 block with size < SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN will return an InvalidData error as it doesn't pass the rpc types bound check.

This error can be seen when we try syncing pre-altair blocks with size smaller than SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN.

This PR fixes the issue by also accounting for forks earlier than current_fork in the rpc limits calculation in the rpc_block_limits_by_fork function. I decided to hardcode the limits in the function because that seemed simpler than calculating previous forks based on current fork and doing a min across forks. Adding a new fork variant is simple and can the limits can be easily checked in a review.

Adds unit tests and modifies the syncing simulator to check the syncing from across fork boundaries.
The syncing simulator's block 1 would always be of phase 0 minimum size (404 bytes) which is smaller than altair min block size (since block 1 contains no attestations).

Copy link
Collaborator

@divagant-martian divagant-martian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minor nitpicks

Co-authored-by: Divma <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@michaelsproul michaelsproul left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks solid to me, and I can confirm that this branch allows my node to start syncing from genesis on mainnet and Prater, whereas sync stalls on v2.2.0.

Copy link
Member

@AgeManning AgeManning left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks right to me.

Potentially at some stage, we might want to try and set the RPC response limits based on the requests. I think this would only work for BlocksByRange, but if we request a range we know which fork the blocks should be in.
If we request over a range that spans two forks we could just use the union of the sizes (as is done here globally).

@michaelsproul
Copy link
Member

bors r+

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 7, 2022
## Issue Addressed

N/A

## Proposed Changes

#3133 changed the rpc type limits to be fork aware i.e. if our current fork based on wall clock slot is Altair, then we apply only altair rpc type limits. This is a bug because phase0 blocks can still be sent over rpc and phase 0 block minimum size is smaller than altair block minimum size. So a phase0 block with `size < SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN` will return an `InvalidData` error as it doesn't pass the rpc types bound check.

This error can be seen when we try syncing pre-altair blocks with size smaller than `SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN`.

This PR fixes the issue by also accounting for forks earlier than current_fork in the rpc limits calculation in the  `rpc_block_limits_by_fork` function. I decided to hardcode the limits in the function because that seemed simpler than calculating previous forks based on current fork and doing a min across forks. Adding a new fork variant is simple and can the limits can be easily checked in a review. 

Adds unit tests and modifies the syncing simulator to check the syncing from across fork boundaries. 
The syncing simulator's block 1 would always be of phase 0 minimum size (404 bytes) which is smaller than altair min block size (since block 1 contains no attestations).
@michaelsproul michaelsproul added the ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge. label Apr 7, 2022
@bors bors bot changed the title Fix rpc limits version 2 [Merged by Bors] - Fix rpc limits version 2 Apr 8, 2022
@bors bors bot closed this Apr 8, 2022
paulhauner pushed a commit to paulhauner/lighthouse that referenced this pull request May 6, 2022
## Issue Addressed

N/A

## Proposed Changes

sigp#3133 changed the rpc type limits to be fork aware i.e. if our current fork based on wall clock slot is Altair, then we apply only altair rpc type limits. This is a bug because phase0 blocks can still be sent over rpc and phase 0 block minimum size is smaller than altair block minimum size. So a phase0 block with `size < SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN` will return an `InvalidData` error as it doesn't pass the rpc types bound check.

This error can be seen when we try syncing pre-altair blocks with size smaller than `SIGNED_BEACON_BLOCK_ALTAIR_MIN`.

This PR fixes the issue by also accounting for forks earlier than current_fork in the rpc limits calculation in the  `rpc_block_limits_by_fork` function. I decided to hardcode the limits in the function because that seemed simpler than calculating previous forks based on current fork and doing a min across forks. Adding a new fork variant is simple and can the limits can be easily checked in a review. 

Adds unit tests and modifies the syncing simulator to check the syncing from across fork boundaries. 
The syncing simulator's block 1 would always be of phase 0 minimum size (404 bytes) which is smaller than altair min block size (since block 1 contains no attestations).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A0 ready-for-merge This PR is ready to merge.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants