feat(blockifier): add support for sha256_process_block syscall

[varex83]

This PR adds support for the sha256_process_block syscall for cairo native's syscall handler.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.48%. Comparing base (861b3c2) to head (bd4f9d6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                    @@
##           rdr/add-syscall-counting    #1545   +/-   ##
=========================================================
  Coverage                     68.48%   68.48%           
=========================================================
  Files                           102      102           
  Lines                         13662    13662           
  Branches                      13662    13662           
=========================================================
  Hits                           9357     9357           
  Misses                         3904     3904           
  Partials                        401      401           

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

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[meship-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5.
Reviewable status: 1 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @noaov1 and @varex83)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/entry_point_execution.rs line 74 at r5 (raw file):

    let versioned_constants = syscall_handler.context.versioned_constants();
    *syscall_handler.resources +=
        &versioned_constants.get_additional_os_syscall_resources(&syscall_handler.syscall_counter);

It seems like these lines are duplicated.

Suggestion:

    // todo(rodrigo): execution resources for native execution are still wip until future
    // development on both Cairo lang and the Native compiler
    let versioned_constants = syscall_handler.context.versioned_constants();
    *syscall_handler.resources +=
        &versioned_constants.get_additional_os_syscall_resources(&syscall_handler.syscall_counter);

---

crates/blockifier/src/test_utils/cairo_compile.rs line 198 at r5 (raw file):

    sierra_output.stdout
}

I don't think this should be part of this PR. Is it here because this PR is based on add_syscall_counting and not add_native_suppourt_in_testing_suite?

Code quote:

pub fn sierra_compile(
    path: String,
    git_tag_override: Option<String>,
    cargo_nightly_arg: Option<String>,
) -> Vec<u8> {
    prepare_cairo1_compiler_deps(git_tag_override);

    let cairo1_compiler_path = local_cairo1_compiler_repo_path();

    // Command args common to both compilation phases.
    let mut base_compile_args = vec![
        "run".into(),
        format!("--manifest-path={}/Cargo.toml", cairo1_compiler_path.to_string_lossy()),
        "--bin".into(),
    ];
    // Add additional cargo arg if provided. Should be first arg (base command is `cargo`).
    if let Some(nightly_version) = cargo_nightly_arg {
        base_compile_args.insert(0, format!("+nightly-{nightly_version}"));
    }

    // Cairo -> Sierra.
    let mut starknet_compile_commmand = Command::new("cargo");
    starknet_compile_commmand.args(base_compile_args.clone());
    starknet_compile_commmand.args(["starknet-compile", "--", "--single-file", &path]);
    let sierra_output = run_and_verify_output(&mut starknet_compile_commmand);

    sierra_output.stdout
}

[meship-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, 1 of 2 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @noaov1 and @varex83)

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[PearsonWhite]

Reviewable status: 1 of 5 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/entry_point_execution.rs line 74 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, meship-starkware (Meshi Peled) wrote…

It seems like these lines are duplicated.

Fixed.

---

crates/blockifier/src/test_utils/cairo_compile.rs line 198 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, meship-starkware (Meshi Peled) wrote…

I don't think this should be part of this PR. Is it here because this PR is based on add_syscall_counting and not add_native_suppourt_in_testing_suite?

I think this was because rdr/add-syscall-counting had been updated and this branch was still based on an old version. I rebased onto the latest rdr/add-syscall-counting and it's no longer incorrectly showing this as part of the PR.

[meship-starkware]

Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @noaov1)

[meship-starkware]

Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @noaov1 and @varex83)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/syscall_handler.rs line 319 at r6 (raw file):

        current_block: &[u32; 16],
        remaining_gas: &mut u128,
    ) -> SyscallResult<()> {

Why is it ok to return None here while the function in the VM returns Sha256ProcessBlockResponse?

Code quote:

SyscallResult<()> {

[varex83]

Reviewable status: 4 of 5 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @meship-starkware and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/syscall_handler.rs line 319 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, meship-starkware (Meshi Peled) wrote…

Why is it ok to return None here while the function in the VM returns Sha256ProcessBlockResponse?

It's more of a question to the cairo native team before it returns a new state, but now we pass a mutable reference of prev_state and update it accordingly. Why this design choice is made I can't say

[noaov1]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, 4 of 4 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @varex83)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/syscall_handler.rs line 326 at r6 (raw file):

        )?;

        let data_as_bytes = sha2::digest::generic_array::GenericArray::from_exact_iter(

Suggestion:

let current_block_as_bytes = sha2::digest::generic_array::GenericArray:

[avi-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r5, 1 of 4 files at r6, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @varex83)

[meship-starkware]

Reviewed 1 of 4 files at r6.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @varex83)

[varex83]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @meship-starkware and @noaov1)

---

crates/blockifier/src/execution/native/syscall_handler.rs line 326 at r6 (raw file):

        )?;

        let data_as_bytes = sha2::digest::generic_array::GenericArray::from_exact_iter(

Named like that just to be consistent with the current VM implementation:

sequencer/crates/blockifier/src/execution/syscalls/mod.rs

Line 766 in 2084527

let data_as_bytes =

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here

[meship-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @noaov1)

[avi-starkware]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @noaov1)

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload triggered. View details here