* - Update the fork choice `ProtoNode` to include `is_merge_complete`
- Add database migration for the persisted fork choice
* update tests
* Small cleanup
* lints
* store execution block hash in fork choice rather than bool
Added Execution Payload from Rayonism Fork
Updated new Containers to match Merge Spec
Updated BeaconBlockBody for Merge Spec
Completed updating BeaconState and BeaconBlockBody
Modified ExecutionPayload<T> to use Transaction<T>
Mostly Finished Changes for beacon-chain.md
Added some things for fork-choice.md
Update to match new fork-choice.md/fork.md changes
ran cargo fmt
Added Missing Pieces in eth2_libp2p for Merge
fix ef test
Various Changes to Conform Closer to Merge Spec
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Implements the "union" type from the SSZ spec for `ssz`, `ssz_derive`, `tree_hash` and `tree_hash_derive` so it may be derived for `enums`:
https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/v1.1.0-beta.3/ssz/simple-serialize.md#union
The union type is required for the merge, since the `Transaction` type is defined as a single-variant union `Union[OpaqueTransaction]`.
### Crate Updates
This PR will (hopefully) cause CI to publish new versions for the following crates:
- `eth2_ssz_derive`: `0.2.1` -> `0.3.0`
- `eth2_ssz`: `0.3.0` -> `0.4.0`
- `eth2_ssz_types`: `0.2.0` -> `0.2.1`
- `tree_hash`: `0.3.0` -> `0.4.0`
- `tree_hash_derive`: `0.3.0` -> `0.4.0`
These these crates depend on each other, I've had to add a workspace-level `[patch]` for these crates. A follow-up PR will need to remove this patch, ones the new versions are published.
### Union Behaviors
We already had SSZ `Encode` and `TreeHash` derive for enums, however it just did a "transparent" pass-through of the inner value. Since the "union" decoding from the spec is in conflict with the transparent method, I've required that all `enum` have exactly one of the following enum-level attributes:
#### SSZ
- `#[ssz(enum_behaviour = "union")]`
- matches the spec used for the merge
- `#[ssz(enum_behaviour = "transparent")]`
- maintains existing functionality
- not supported for `Decode` (never was)
#### TreeHash
- `#[tree_hash(enum_behaviour = "union")]`
- matches the spec used for the merge
- `#[tree_hash(enum_behaviour = "transparent")]`
- maintains existing functionality
This means that we can maintain the existing transparent behaviour, but all existing users will get a compile-time error until they explicitly opt-in to being transparent.
### Legacy Option Encoding
Before this PR, we already had a union-esque encoding for `Option<T>`. However, this was with the *old* SSZ spec where the union selector was 4 bytes. During merge specification, the spec was changed to use 1 byte for the selector.
Whilst the 4-byte `Option` encoding was never used in the spec, we used it in our database. Writing a migrate script for all occurrences of `Option` in the database would be painful, especially since it's used in the `CommitteeCache`. To avoid the migrate script, I added a serde-esque `#[ssz(with = "module")]` field-level attribute to `ssz_derive` so that we can opt into the 4-byte encoding on a field-by-field basis.
The `ssz::legacy::four_byte_impl!` macro allows a one-liner to define the module required for the `#[ssz(with = "module")]` for some `Option<T> where T: Encode + Decode`.
Notably, **I have removed `Encode` and `Decode` impls for `Option`**. I've done this to force a break on downstream users. Like I mentioned, `Option` isn't used in the spec so I don't think it'll be *that* annoying. I think it's nicer than quietly having two different union implementations or quietly breaking the existing `Option` impl.
### Crate Publish Ordering
I've modified the order in which CI publishes crates to ensure that we don't publish a crate without ensuring we already published a crate that it depends upon.
## TODO
- [ ] Queue a follow-up `[patch]`-removing PR.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Adds the ability to verify batches of aggregated/unaggregated attestations from the network.
When the `BeaconProcessor` finds there are messages in the aggregated or unaggregated attestation queues, it will first check the length of the queue:
- `== 1` verify the attestation individually.
- `>= 2` take up to 64 of those attestations and verify them in a batch.
Notably, we only perform batch verification if the queue has a backlog. We don't apply any artificial delays to attestations to try and force them into batches.
### Batching Details
To assist with implementing batches we modify `beacon_chain::attestation_verification` to have two distinct categories for attestations:
- *Indexed* attestations: those which have passed initial validation and were valid enough for us to derive an `IndexedAttestation`.
- *Verified* attestations: those attestations which were indexed *and also* passed signature verification. These are well-formed, interesting messages which were signed by validators.
The batching functions accept `n` attestations and then return `n` attestation verification `Result`s, where those `Result`s can be any combination of `Ok` or `Err`. In other words, we attempt to verify as many attestations as possible and return specific per-attestation results so peer scores can be updated, if required.
When we batch verify attestations, we first try to map all those attestations to *indexed* attestations. If any of those attestations were able to be indexed, we then perform batch BLS verification on those indexed attestations. If the batch verification succeeds, we convert them into *verified* attestations, disabling individual signature checking. If the batch fails, we convert to verified attestations with individual signature checking enabled.
Ultimately, we optimistically try to do a batch verification of attestation signatures and fall-back to individual verification if it fails. This opens an attach vector for "poisoning" the attestations and causing us to waste a batch verification. I argue that peer scoring should do a good-enough job of defending against this and the typical-case gains massively outweigh the worst-case losses.
## Additional Info
Before this PR, attestation verification took the attestations by value (instead of by reference). It turns out that this was unnecessary and, in my opinion, resulted in some undesirable ergonomics (e.g., we had to pass the attestation back in the `Err` variant to avoid clones). In this PR I've modified attestation verification so that it now takes a reference.
I refactored the `beacon_chain/tests/attestation_verification.rs` tests so they use a builder-esque "tester" struct instead of a weird macro. It made it easier for me to test individual/batch with the same set of tests and I think it was a nice tidy-up. Notably, I did this last to try and make sure my new refactors to *actual* production code would pass under the existing test suite.
## Issue Addressed
Closes#1891Closes#1784
## Proposed Changes
Implement checkpoint sync for Lighthouse, enabling it to start from a weak subjectivity checkpoint.
## Additional Info
- [x] Return unavailable status for out-of-range blocks requested by peers (#2561)
- [x] Implement sync daemon for fetching historical blocks (#2561)
- [x] Verify chain hashes (either in `historical_blocks.rs` or the calling module)
- [x] Consistency check for initial block + state
- [x] Fetch the initial state and block from a beacon node HTTP endpoint
- [x] Don't crash fetching beacon states by slot from the API
- [x] Background service for state reconstruction, triggered by CLI flag or API call.
Considered out of scope for this PR:
- Drop the requirement to provide the `--checkpoint-block` (this would require some pretty heavy refactoring of block verification)
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
In previous network updates we have made our libp2p connections more lean by limiting the maximum number of connections a lighthouse node will accept before libp2p rejects new connections.
However, we still maintain the logic that at maximum connections, we try to dial extra peers if they are needed by a validator client to publish messages on a specific subnet. The dials typically result in failures due the libp2p connection limits.
This PR adds an extra factor, `PRIORITY_PEER_EXCESS` which sets aside a new allocation of peers we are able to dial in case we need these peers for the VC client. This allocation sits along side the excess peer (which allows extra incoming peers on top of our target peer limit).
The drawback here, is that libp2p now allows extra peers to connect to us (beyond the standard peer limit) which the peer manager should subsequently reject.
This PR in general improves the handling around peer banning.
Specifically there were issues when multiple peers under a single IP connected to us after we banned the IP for poor behaviour.
This PR should now handle these peers gracefully as well as make some improvements around how we previously disconnected and banned peers.
The logic now goes as follows:
- Once a peer gets banned, its gets registered with its known IP addresses
- Once enough banned peers exist under a single IP that IP is banned
- We retain connections with existing peers under this IP
- Any new connections under this IP are rejected
## Issue Addressed
N/A
## Proposed Changes
Add a fork_digest to `ForkContext` only if it is set in the config.
Reject gossip messages on post fork topics before the fork happens.
Edit: Instead of rejecting gossip messages on post fork topics, we now subscribe to post fork topics 2 slots before the fork.
Co-authored-by: Age Manning <Age@AgeManning.com>
# Description
A few changes have been made to discovery. In particular a custom re-write of an LRU cache which previously was read/write O(N) for all our sessions ~5k, to a more reasonable hashmap-style O(1).
Further there has been reported issues in the current discv5, so added error handling to help identify the issue has been added.
The identify network debug logs can get quite noisy and are unnecessary to print on every request/response.
This PR reduces debug noise by only printing messages for identify messages that offer some new information.
