Changes the endpoint to get fallback health information from `/lighthouse/ui/fallback_health` to `/lighthouse/beacon/health`. This more accurately describes that the endpoint is related to the connected beacon nodes and also matched the `/lighthouse/beacon/update` endpoint being added in #6551.
Adds documentation for both fallback health and the endpoint to the Lighthouse book.
One of the information in the consolidation section in Lighthouse book is wrong. I realise this after reading https://ethereum.org/en/roadmap/pectra/maxeb/ and a further look at [EIP 7251](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7251) which states:
`
Note: the system contract uses the EVM CALLER operation (Solidity: msg.sender) to get the address used in the consolidation request, i.e. the address that calls the system contract must match the 0x01 withdrawal credential recorded in the beacon state.
`
So the withdrawal credentials of both source and target validators need not be the same.
closes https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/5785
The diagram below shows the differences in how the receiver (responder) behaves before and after this PR. The following sentences will detail the changes.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
subgraph "*** After ***"
Start2([START]) --> AA[Receive request]
AA --> COND1{Is there already an active request <br> with the same protocol?}
COND1 --> |Yes| CC[Send error response]
CC --> End2([END])
%% COND1 --> |No| COND2{Request is too large?}
%% COND2 --> |Yes| CC
COND1 --> |No| DD[Process request]
DD --> EE{Rate limit reached?}
EE --> |Yes| FF[Wait until tokens are regenerated]
FF --> EE
EE --> |No| GG[Send response]
GG --> End2
end
subgraph "*** Before ***"
Start([START]) --> A[Receive request]
A --> B{Rate limit reached <br> or <br> request is too large?}
B -->|Yes| C[Send error response]
C --> End([END])
B -->|No| E[Process request]
E --> F[Send response]
F --> End
end
```
### `Is there already an active request with the same protocol?`
This check is not performed in `Before`. This is taken from the PR in the consensus-spec, which proposes updates regarding rate limiting and response timeout.
https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3767/files
> The requester MUST NOT make more than two concurrent requests with the same ID.
The PR mentions the requester side. In this PR, I introduced the `ActiveRequestsLimiter` for the `responder` side to restrict more than two requests from running simultaneously on the same protocol per peer. If the limiter disallows a request, the responder sends a rate-limited error and penalizes the requester.
### `Rate limit reached?` and `Wait until tokens are regenerated`
UPDATE: I moved the limiter logic to the behaviour side. https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/5923#issuecomment-2379535927
~~The rate limiter is shared between the behaviour and the handler. (`Arc<Mutex<RateLimiter>>>`) The handler checks the rate limit and queues the response if the limit is reached. The behaviour handles pruning.~~
~~I considered not sharing the rate limiter between the behaviour and the handler, and performing all of these either within the behaviour or handler. However, I decided against this for the following reasons:~~
- ~~Regarding performing everything within the behaviour: The behaviour is unable to recognize the response protocol when `RPC::send_response()` is called, especially when the response is `RPCCodedResponse::Error`. Therefore, the behaviour can't rate limit responses based on the response protocol.~~
- ~~Regarding performing everything within the handler: When multiple connections are established with a peer, there could be multiple handlers interacting with that peer. Thus, we cannot enforce rate limiting per peer solely within the handler. (Any ideas? 🤔 )~~
Lighthouse currently lacks support for cross-compilation targeting the `riscv64` architecture.
This PR introduces initial support for cross-compiling Lighthouse to `riscv64`. The following changes were made:
- **Makefile**: Updated to support `cross` with `riscv64` as a target.
- **Cross.toml**: Added configuration specific to `riscv64`.
- **Documentation**: List 'build-riscv64' in `book/src/installation_cross_compiling.md`.
Did not find a specific issue beside https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/6821
Leverage `whistleblower_reward_quotient_for_state` to have accurate post-electra `proposer_slashings` and `attester_slashings` fields returned by `/eth/v1/beacon/rewards/blocks/<id>`.
Lighthouse does not compile on the _riscv64_ architecture due to a missing target configuration in the `bls_hardware_acceleration` function.
Added support for compiling Lighthouse on the riscv64 architecture by explicitly handling the _riscv64_ target in the bls_hardware_acceleration function.
Specifically, this line was added:
```
#[cfg(target_arch = "riscv64")]
return false;
```
This prevents a compilation error on RISC-V.
#7294
Fix the filtering logic so that we actually filter by committee index for both `Base` and `Electra` attestations.
Added a tiny optimization when calculating committee_index to prevent unneeded memory allocations
Added a regression test
Closes#7167
- Ensure the fork digest is generated from ther light client updates attested header and not the signature slot
- Ensure the format of the SSZ response is spec compliant
- Update the bundled `electra.yaml` preset files for `mainnet` and `minimal` to match `consensus-specs` as of: bf09edef17
- Add the field `max_pending_deposits_per_epoch` to our runtime representation of `ElectraPreset`. This results in it appearing in `/eth/v1/config/spec` where it was previously absent.
Downgrade light client errors to debug
Error messages are alarming and usually indicate somethings wrong with the beacon node. The Light Client service is supposed to minimally impact users, and most will not care if the light client server is erroring. Furthermore, the only errors we've seen in the wild are during hard forks, for the first few epochs before the fork finalizes.
#6296: Deterministic RNG in peer DAS publish block tests
Made test functions to call publish-block APIs with true for the deterministic RNG boolean parameter while production code with false. This will deterministically shuffle columns for unit tests under broadcast_validation_tests.rs.
Not essential to merge this now, but I'm going through TODOs for Electra to make sure we haven't missed anything.
Targeting this at the release branch anyway so that auditors/readers don't get alarmed 😅
Resolves#6811
Rename `GOSSIP_MAX_SIZE` to `MAX_PAYLOAD_SIZE` and remove `MAX_CHUNK_SIZE` in accordance with the spec.
The spec also "clarifies" the message size limits at different levels. The rpc limits are equivalent to what we had before imo.
The gossip limits have additional checks.
I have gotten rid of the `is_bellatrix_enabled` checks that used a lower limit (1mb) pre-merge. Since all networks we run start from the merge, I don't think this will break any setups.
Previously only supernode contributes to data column publishing in Lighthouse.
Recently we've [updated the spec](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/4183) to have full nodes publishing data columns as well, to ensure all nodes contributes to propagation.
This also prevents already imported data columns from being imported again (because we don't "observe" them), and ensures columns that are observed in the [gossip seen cache](d60c24ef1c/beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/data_column_verification.rs (L492)) are forwarded to its peers, rather than being ignored.
Having merged the drop-headtracker PR we now have a DB schema change in `unstable` compared to `release-v7.0.0`:
- https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/6744
There is a DB downgrade available, however this needs to be applied manually and it's usually a bit of a hassle.
This PR bumps the version on `unstable` to `v7.1.0-beta.0` _without_ actually cutting a `v7.1.0-beta.0` release, so that we can tell at a glance which schema version a node is using.
The head tracker is a persisted piece of state that must be kept in sync with the fork-choice. It has been a source of pruning issues in the past, so we want to remove it
- see https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/1785
When implementing tree-states in the hot DB we have to change the pruning routine (more details below) so we want to do those changes first in isolation.
- see https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/6580
- If you want to see the full feature of tree-states hot https://github.com/dapplion/lighthouse/pull/39
Closes https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/1785
**Current DB migration routine**
- Locate abandoned heads with head tracker
- Use a roots iterator to collect the ancestors of those heads can be pruned
- Delete those abandoned blocks / states
- Migrate the newly finalized chain to the freezer
In summary, it computes what it has to delete and keeps the rest. Then it migrates data to the freezer. If the abandoned forks routine has a bug it can break the freezer migration.
**Proposed migration routine (this PR)**
- Migrate the newly finalized chain to the freezer
- Load all state summaries from disk
- From those, just knowing the head and finalized block compute two sets: (1) descendants of finalized (2) newly finalized chain
- Iterate all summaries, if a summary does not belong to set (1) or (2), delete
This strategy is more sound as it just checks what's there in the hot DB, computes what it has to keep and deletes the rest. Because it does not rely and 3rd pieces of data we can drop the head tracker and pruning checkpoint. Since the DB migration happens **first** now, as long as the computation of the sets to keep is correct we won't have pruning issues.
N/A
Return state.eth1_data() early if we have passed the transition period post electra. Even if we don't return early, the function would still return state.eth1_data() based on the current conditions. However, doing this explicitly here to match the spec. This covers setting the right eth1_data in our block.
The other thing we need to ensure is that the deposits returned by the eth1_chain is empty post transition.
The only way we get non-empty deposits post the transition is if `state.eth1_deposit_index` in the below code is less than `min(deposit_requests_start_index, state.eth1_data().deposit_count)`.
0850bcfb89/beacon_node/beacon_chain/src/eth1_chain.rs (L543-L579)
This can never happen because state.eth1_deposit_index will be equal to state.eth1_data.deposit count and cannot exceed the value.
@michaelsproul @ethDreamer please double check the logic for deposits being empty post transition. Following the logic in the spec makes my head hurt.
Partially #6989.
This PR adds the missing error log when a batch fails due to issues with converting the response into `RpcBlock`. See the above linked issue for more details.
Adding this log reveals that we're completing range requests with missing columns, hence causing the batch to fail. It looks like we've hit the case where we've received enough stream terminations, but not all columns are returned.
```
Feb 12 06:12:16.558 DEBG Failed to convert range block components into RpcBlock, error: No column for block 0xc5b6c7fa02f5ef603d45819c08c6519f1dba661fd5d44a2fc849d3e7028b6007 index 18, id: 3456/RangeSync/116/3432, service: sync, module: network::sync::network_context:488
```
I've also removed some redundant `id` logging, as the `id` debug representation is difficult to read, and is now being logged as part of `req_id` in a more succinct format (relevant PR: #6914)
From testing conducted by Sunnyside Labs, they noticed that the "expected blobs" are quite low on bandwidth constrained nodes. This observation revealed that we don't record the `beacon_blobs_from_el_expected_total` metric at all if the EL doesn't return any response. The fetch blobs function returns without recording the metric.
To fix this, I've moved `BLOBS_FROM_EL_EXPECTED_TOTAL` and `BLOBS_FROM_EL_RECEIVED_TOTAL` to as early as possible, to make the metric more accurate.
