seal_reentrant_count
#5
Conversation
yarikbratashchuk
force-pushed
the
seal_reentrant_count
branch
from
d246842
to
c43d921
Compare
yarikbratashchuk
changed the title
seal_reentrant_count
yarikbratashchuk
added
enhancement
We can do that but better as a separate function to not affect the size of the contract. |
didn't get it |
yarikbratashchuk
force-pushed
the
seal_reentrant_count
branch
from
c43d921
to
a8214fd
Compare
|
@xgreenx, please take a look |
frame/contracts/src/wasm/mod.rs
Outdated
| self.reentrant_count.push(12u8); | ||
| 12 | ||
| } | ||
| fn account_entrance_count(&mut self, _account_id: AccountIdOf<Self::T>) -> u32 { unimplemented!() } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't see a good reason to test this
| // to the calling instance. A value of 0 means no reentrancy. | ||
| [__unstable__] seal_reentrant_count(ctx) -> u32 => { | ||
| ctx.charge_gas(RuntimeCosts::ReentrantCount)?; | ||
| Ok(ctx.ext.reentrant_count() as u32) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can use ctx.ext.account_entrance_count here and only add charging for reading of the data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ctx.ext.reentrant_count uses ctx.ext.account_entrance_count
frame/contracts/src/exec.rs
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn account_entrance_count(&mut self, account_id: AccountIdOf<Self::T>) -> u32 { | ||
| self.frames().filter_map(|f| Some(f.delegate_caller.is_none() && &f.account_id == &account_id)).count() as u32 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess you can do that in a cheaper way without filtering.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i have no idea why filtering is considered not cheap enough
| params: vec![], | ||
| return_type: Some(ValueType::I32), | ||
| }], | ||
| call_body: Some(body::repeated(r * API_BENCHMARK_BATCH_SIZE, &[ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the right will be to calculate how much we need gas for one iteration over frames. And in the functions charge exactly for the count of frames. But we can leave it for official review from the contract-pallet team if you wish=)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea actually. I propose to move forward with it as it is for now.
seal_reentrant_count,seal_account_entrance_countparitytech#11018