fix: properly handle genesis as part of stateless validation #10633

pugachAG · 2024-02-20T13:06:29Z

This PR removes "approve anything" shortcut when previous chunk is part of genesis. The only difference in case of genesis is that we don't want to execute main state transition and instead just check that post state root matches genesis state root for that shard.

This also exposed some issue I had to fix to make tests work:

MockEpochManager::get_epoch_chunk_producers returns empty Vec which results in Chain:: should_produce_state_witness_for_this_or_next_epoch returning false. Fixed by adding is_chunk_producer_for_epoch as part of EpochManagerAdapter so MockEpochManager can override it.
test_chunk_state_witness_bad_shard_id test started failing: this actually uncovered a real issue which could result in crashing chunk validator when state witness contains invalid shard id, fixed in c5b2c5e

Closes #10502.

Longarithm · 2024-02-21T19:37:13Z

@staffik @jancionear could you review please? If you LGTM it then I'll stamp an approval as well.

staffik · 2024-02-22T10:28:08Z

@pugachAG please let me know when I should proceed with review, I see quite of lot changes keep being added now.

codecov · 2024-02-22T11:11:24Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.84431% with 37 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 72.38%. Comparing base (6dfaa36) to head (5794736).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...client/src/stateless_validation/chunk_validator.rs	79.31%	8 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
chain/chain/src/chain.rs	60.00%	2 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
core/primitives/src/epoch_manager.rs	53.84%	2 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
tools/state-viewer/src/epoch_info.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...src/stateless_validation/state_witness_producer.rs	87.50%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
core/primitives/src/errors.rs	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
chain/chain/src/test_utils/kv_runtime.rs	91.66%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
chain/epoch-manager/src/adapter.rs	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10633      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.42%   72.38%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         729      729              
  Lines      148996   149046      +50     
  Branches   148996   149046      +50     
==========================================
- Hits       107912   107884      -28     
- Misses      36207    36263      +56     
- Partials     4877     4899      +22

Flag	Coverage Δ
backward-compatibility	`0.24% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
db-migration	`0.24% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
genesis-check	`1.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
integration-tests	`36.91% <76.04%> (-0.23%)`	⬇️
linux	`71.27% <12.17%> (-0.03%)`	⬇️
linux-nightly	`71.80% <77.84%> (-0.09%)`	⬇️
macos	`55.39% <12.17%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
pytests	`1.65% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
sanity-checks	`1.43% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
unittests	`68.29% <34.13%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
upgradability	`0.29% <0.00%> (-0.01%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

pugachAG · 2024-02-22T11:22:42Z

@staffik @jancionear this PR is ready for review now

staffik

LGTM

staffik · 2024-02-22T13:21:54Z

integration-tests/src/tests/client/features/adversarial_behaviors.rs

-                            // would be skipped when using stateless validation.
-                            this_block_should_be_skipped = height < 3;
+                            // included in the block at all.
+                            this_block_should_be_skipped = false;


In case uses_stateless_validation it looks like we do not even need to run the containing loop.
What about if height > 1 && !uses_stateless_validation { and move the comment above?

It doesn't look like we can skip the loop since it also updates invalid_chunks_in_this_block which is used later.
I've updated this to avoid setting this_block_should_be_skipped = false here since it is noop: 10a99ff

jancionear

Looks nice, left some comments

jancionear · 2024-02-22T14:48:08Z

chain/epoch-manager/src/adapter.rs

+    /// This function is only needed to have a 'return true' implementation
+    /// as part of MockEpochManager to make tests work with stateless validation
+    /// enabled.
+    /// TODO(#10640): remove this after we get rid of MockEpochManager
+    fn is_chunk_producer_for_epoch(


This function is also used in Chain::should_produce_state_witness_for_this_or_next_epoch, so I think the comment is wrong. It still will be needed after MockEpochManager is removed.

Yeah, I see how it can be confusing. What I meant here is that it doesn't have to be a part of EpochManagerAdapter trait. I guess it is not that important, so I will just drop the comment and close the issue.

chain/client/Cargo.toml

chain/client/src/client.rs

jancionear · 2024-02-22T14:59:55Z

chain/client/src/stateless_validation/chunk_validator.rs

+        if block.header().is_genesis() {
+            assert_eq!(receipt_source_blocks.len(), 1);
+            break;
+        }


I feel uneasy about having an assert in the validation code. I think it would be better to have an error, there's no reason to risk a panic.

nit: Maybe it would be nicer to have an explicit condition: if witnes for genesis { source receipts should be empty}. I feel that it would be easier to reason about than the current solution.

This assert is not part of validation logic, it ensures that our chain is in the valid state (receipt_source_blocks is not calculated using our own chain state, not state witness). I will replace it with proper error handling so you feel better about it 😉

Maybe it would be nicer to have an explicit condition

It is a bit more code, but indeed should be easier to understand, done

core/primitives/src/block_header.rs

jancionear · 2024-02-22T15:35:16Z

chain/client/src/view_client.rs

@@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ impl ViewClientActor {
            let cps: Vec<AccountId> = shard_ids
                .iter()
                .map(|&shard_id| {
-                    let cp = epoch_info.sample_chunk_producer(block_height, shard_id);


Is it safe to unwrap() here? The function returns an Error, so maybe it would be better to return an error.
(Also applies to other unwraps() on the new sample_chunk_producer)

shard id should be valid here let shard_ids = self.epoch_manager.shard_ids(&epoch_id)?
returning error requires a bit of refactoring here since it is part of map, so we cannot just add ?, so probably should be done in a separate PR

jancionear · 2024-02-22T15:41:05Z

core/primitives/src/epoch_manager.rs

+                    let sample = v4.chunk_producers_sampler.get(shard_id)?.sample(seed);
+                    v4.chunk_producers_settlement.get(shard_id)?.get(sample).copied()
                }
            }
        }


test_chunk_state_witness_bad_shard_id test started failing: this actually uncovered a real issue which could result in crashing chunk validator when state witness contains invalid shard id, fixed in c5b2c5e

So IIUC we are now validating the shard_id of ChunkStateWitness by trying to sample a chunk producer for this shard_id. That feels a bit hacky, maybe we should have some function that prevalidates the witness header (or just shard_id) before doing anything else. Sampling the producer could potentially work with invalid shard ids (e.g producers[(height + shard) % producers.len()), so it's not obvious that it can be done with untrusted data.

It's another time that an invalid shard_id could cause a crash (#10621 ...), I think it would be good to go through the code and just remove all usages of [shard_id]. It causes problems now, and it's gonna be even worse with resharding :/ I'll make an issue.

Opened #10648

Longarithm

Approving to unblock

shreyan-gupta · 2024-02-27T11:24:48Z

core/primitives/src/stateless_validation.rs

@@ -118,24 +118,6 @@ impl ChunkStateWitnessInner {
    }
 }

-impl ChunkStateWitness {


Noticed the introduction of `is_genesis` function in #10633 This PR tries to use the `is_genesis` function in place of comparing prev_hash with CryptoHash::default()

pugachAG added the A-stateless-validation Area: stateless validation label Feb 20, 2024

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch 7 times, most recently from a8575d1 to bddbc41 Compare February 21, 2024 13:39

pugachAG requested review from Longarithm, staffik and jancionear February 21, 2024 13:43

pugachAG marked this pull request as ready for review February 21, 2024 13:44

pugachAG requested a review from a team as a code owner February 21, 2024 13:44

pugachAG mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2024

Remove is_chunk_producer_for_epoch from EpochManagerAdapter #10640

Closed

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch from bddbc41 to 6de4311 Compare February 21, 2024 14:15

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch 2 times, most recently from 2d92a9d to 0a408eb Compare February 22, 2024 07:39

impl

e974b63

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch from 0a408eb to e974b63 Compare February 22, 2024 08:05

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch from 53d8e08 to dbcfa97 Compare February 22, 2024 10:44

fix test_chunk_state_witness_bad_shard_id test

c5b2c5e

pugachAG force-pushed the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch from dbcfa97 to c5b2c5e Compare February 22, 2024 10:45

pugachAG marked this pull request as draft February 22, 2024 10:46

pugachAG marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2024 11:22

staffik approved these changes Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

apply review comments

10a99ff

jancionear reviewed Feb 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

moar review comments

5794736

Longarithm approved these changes Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

jancionear approved these changes Feb 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

pugachAG added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 23, 2024

Merged via the queue into master with commit 0918295 Feb 23, 2024
26 of 28 checks passed

pugachAG deleted the proper-stateless-validation-genesis branch February 23, 2024 15:03

shreyan-gupta mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2024

[cleanup] Use is_genesis function where ever possible #10669

Merged

shreyan-gupta reviewed Feb 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

walnut-the-cat mentioned this pull request Feb 27, 2024

[ProjectTracking]: Stateless validation StatelessNet near/near-one-project-tracking#20

Open

64 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: properly handle genesis as part of stateless validation #10633

fix: properly handle genesis as part of stateless validation #10633

pugachAG commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Longarithm commented Feb 21, 2024

staffik commented Feb 22, 2024

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pugachAG commented Feb 22, 2024

staffik left a comment

staffik Feb 22, 2024

pugachAG Feb 22, 2024

jancionear left a comment

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

pugachAG Feb 23, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

pugachAG Feb 23, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

pugachAG Feb 23, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

jancionear Feb 22, 2024

Longarithm left a comment

shreyan-gupta Feb 27, 2024

fix: properly handle genesis as part of stateless validation #10633

fix: properly handle genesis as part of stateless validation #10633

Conversation

pugachAG commented Feb 20, 2024 • edited Loading

Longarithm commented Feb 21, 2024

staffik commented Feb 22, 2024

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

pugachAG commented Feb 22, 2024

staffik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jancionear left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Longarithm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pugachAG commented Feb 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Feb 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading