vm: missing beaconroot account verkle fix #3421
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Ok, so this one is "on hold" then until things are settled? Will give this a "Blocked" label for now due to this assumption, feel free to remove for any reason. |
Just need to figure out why the postState access fails, otherwise this should be OK. |
gabrocheleau
added
PR state: merge ready
and removed
PR state: WIP
PR/Issue state: blocked
labels
This was referenced Sep 5, 2024
This was referenced Sep 18, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR addresses an issue where the account at the beaconRootAddress would be missing from the verkle witness, leading to an error since the statelessStateManager throws whenever there is an account missing in the witness. With this PR, we are fixing this in the same way that we are addressing the same issue that appeared with EIP-2935.
We are discussing with the verkle folks whether or not this should be included in the witness. We (Gajinder and I) are thinking that it should, as it would be nice for a stateless client not to depend on "local state" or "special cases handling" to execute a block. Eventually, the verkle behavior could change so that this becomes unnecessary.
This also updates the verkle test data to include a bigger, more complex verkle block, and fixes the eip-6800 (verkle) test by actually running the block rather than the individual transactions.