Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EOF Implementers Call #58 #1146

Open
poojaranjan opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

EOF Implementers Call #58 #1146

poojaranjan opened this issue Sep 4, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@poojaranjan
Copy link
Contributor

poojaranjan commented Sep 4, 2024

Meeting Info

Sep 18th, 2024 , 15:00 UTC

Duration: 60 minutes

Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88940506383?pwd=aTdsbHVyMTNDSUFHYmhTWlI2ZEVldz09

📅 Subscribe to the Ethereum Protocol Call calendar for calendar invites

Resources

Agenda

  • Client updates
  • Compiler updates
  • Spec updates
  • Testing updates
  • Other items

Please add other agenda items or links to discuss.

Next call on Oct 2nd, 2024

@shemnon
Copy link
Contributor

shemnon commented Sep 17, 2024

@shemnon
Copy link
Contributor

shemnon commented Sep 18, 2024

  • Client Discussion

  • Discussed Split

    • pt 2 should follow w/in 3-6 months
    • mild preference for one merge, but not enough to block
    • concern about scope creep and moving actual shipment to 1 year
  • Compiler Updates

  • None
  • Specs
    • Tracing
      • evmone will look into implementing, but may have changes to proposle
    • HASCODE/ISCONTRACT
      • Discussed AA concern in discord
        • AA is concerned about the pattern where non-eoa accounts are barred, HASCODE could be used to perpetuate that and slow AA adoption
        • Also, 721 could be solved better with ERC-165 interface
        • counter: AA is slowed by lack of smart contract signatures
        • counter: Banning EOAs possible w/o HASCODE
        • No conclusion yet
      • Could pectra split allow it to be added in V1?
        • Some preference to be in a follow-on fork, but preference may have been driven by time to gather data
        • Split is because of EIP bloat, adding a new EIP would counter the solution
        • At least 1 client wants to include it for V1
          • Absence could slow adoption of EOF (Any ERC-721/ERC-1155 or flashloan project for example)
        • There is concern that 721 and 1155 are badly designed, and so this pattern won't re-occur. An update of 721 could provide the same protections and conform to modern practices.
        • AA accounts could implement 165, but then they would have to have the 721 callbacks active.
        • See note below about EXTDELEGATE and proxies
      • EXTCALL return codes
        • intent
        • 1 - gas was not burned as part of the violation
          • User reverts
          • Some failures related to call process
        • 2 - all gas consumed as part of the failure
          • Out of gas
          • RETURNDATA copy oob in legacy
          • static call violation
          • data stack overflow
        • No action today
      • Allow EXTDELEGATECALL to legacy
        • This is another use case for HASCODE, to ensure EOF proxies won't delegate to a legacy contract
          • This could be solved with a "handshake" method or a trial delegate call
  • Testing
    • PRs will be reviewed
    • 7702 testing
      • many clients were rejecting incorrectly
      • execute mode in EEST can address this problem - uses JSON-RPC only to interact with node

Bikeshedding

  • Can we rename types to stack-io in the spec? types was not terribly clear.
    • stack-io
    • section-info or section-spec
    • code-info
    • signature(s)

Standing agenda should move testing to the first items

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants