-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
Store notification merkleRoot in TransactionState #2940
Open
shargon
wants to merge
9
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
tx-notifications-state-root
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a250bc2
Store NotificationMerkleRoot in TransactionState
shargon 9cd97d9
Merge branch 'master' into tx-notifications-state-root
shargon 0ab910a
Fix UT
shargon 4bc3616
Fix UT
shargon 2475222
Merge branch 'master' into tx-notifications-state-root
shargon 21681a2
Store the hash also for FAULT
shargon c491594
Merge branch 'tx-notifications-state-root' of https://github.com/neo-…
shargon 933ec3a
Merge branch 'master' into tx-notifications-state-root
shargon 7e53178
Merge branch 'master' into tx-notifications-state-root
Jim8y File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see one potential problem with keeping the notifications or their Merkle root in the native Ledger contract (correct me, if I'm wrong):
Problem description
One of the goals that #2034 is trying to solve is aligning all side-effects of transaction execution across the network nodes, which means ensuring that after block acceptance we need to ensure that a) contracts storage has the same set of changes and b) transaction notifications are the same within all the nodes (that's pretty enough for aligning). The problem is that currently, even with StateService plugin acting as a replacement to the StateRootInHeader option, we exclude native Ledger's state from the MPT: https://github.com/neo-project/neo-modules/blob/4f55458bda29a0e80258add2a3768dcc014ab24d/src/StateService/StatePlugin.cs#L97.
This change was firstly implemented in neo-project/neo-modules#470. There are several reasons why we do that, but the most significant are described in neo-project/neo-modules#520 (although this issue is related to the StatesDumper plugin, but the idea is similar).
So here with notifications or their Merkle root, our desire is to include them into comparable (and verifiable) stateroot, but it's not enough to place them into TransactionState structure.
Possible solutions
One of the solution I was thinking about is store notifications or their root under a special prefix (not inside the
TransactionState
structure) and slightly modify StateService plugin to exclude only a part of native Ledger's storage items from the Merkle trie (exclude transactions and blocks, and keep notifications). But I'd like to pay @roman-khimov's attention to this problem, because there might be some problems with porting this solution to the NeoGo, because we have a different storage scheme and do not store anything in our native Ledger contract. Although it might not be a problem if we're about to store only notifications root, it takes only 32 bytes, so it likely won't exploit NeoGo's storage.Another solution that came to my mind is to store notifications in some other contract.
Side note
The described problem will remain relevant even after (or if) we'll move from the StateService plugin to StateRootInHeader option. But maybe I'm missing something and we don't have this problem at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we use just the hash of the storage changes in the header, we can ensure that the state will be the same, also with the notifications, the problem will be with statePlugin, it won't include the ledger data, included the notifications, for me is solved with the state root changes in the header.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is that StateRootInHeader doesn’t include the whole set of changes from the native Ledger’s storage; and at least it has to exclude blocks and transactions states. And thus, the problem remains the same for StateRootInHeader.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, if we use a simple hash we will include all of them, included the Ledger changes, you can remove blocks later, but it will take the previous state hash + the current changes hash
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then we need to discuss it, because I don't think we need to include blocks and transactions into state root at all, even if we store them in native Ledger without witnesses. Why do we need them to be included? We have all accepted blocks and transactions relayed onto P2P level, this mechanism allows nodes to sync the chain without going deep into contract's storage level. I consider we don't need exactly the same blocks/transactions data to be included into native contract storage. E.g. in NeoGo we don't store them in native Ledger, we store them in the DB which allows us to implement some optimizations. And NeoGo's StateRootInHeader implementation (nspcc-dev/neo-go#1500, nspcc-dev/neo-go#1701) also doesn't take into account blocks and transactions states.
I know that NeoGo is not a reference implementation, and if we decide to include blocks/transactions into state, then NeoGo will follow, technically it's possible. But do we really need them to be presented into states? I'd suggest to wait for Roman's opinion on this topic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Either way, this can be discussed after #2914 release.