SVM: add check for check results length mismatch #3259
Merged
Conversation
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
LucasSte
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
apfitzge
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
ray-kast
pushed a commit
to abklabs/agave
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 27, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Problem
Currently, if a consumer of the SVM API provides a
check_resultsparameter that is not the same length as the providedsanitized_txs, a truncation issue can arise.This is less of an issue if
check_resultsis longer thansanitized_txs, but if it's shorter, then the provided list of transactions will actually be truncated, causing only a subset of them to be processed via SVM.We should have a check to help users avoid this footgun.
Summary of Changes
Provide a check that will panic if the lengths of
check_resultsandsanitized_txsare not the same.Note: I'm not sure if a panic is the best approach or not, but I did use
debug_assert!. I felt like this didn't quite make sense to be a transaction error, since it's batch-wide, so I went with the pattern I saw in other parts of SVM and program-runtime. Open to alternate suggestions.