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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
core/txpool/legacypool: add support for SetCode transactions #31073
core/txpool/legacypool: add support for SetCode transactions #31073
Changes from 7 commits
487fcd8
e01a042
e3223c8
418e96b
b74866b
84593a1
85dceef
0c0d6b3
2dc72d5
37d91cd
8c98433
ffa02b8
a15c297
37247f9
56422c8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If I may ask simply out of curiosity, what is the reason for this rule?
It seemed to me that an "in-flight" (meaning "currently in the mempool", right?) authorization is not very different from an authorization already on-chain. At least, not in how it can suddently invalidate some "legacy" transaction from the mempool.
And if I understand this code correctly, at this point the authorizations in
pool.all.auths
are not even checked to have a valid nonce, so even an invalid authorization in a mempool prevents a "legacy" transaction from entering the mempool.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The attack I was trying to avoid here is many EOA accounts send the max number of pending txs possible and all of those accounts get invalidated with a single 7702 tx. There also doesn't seem to be a good reason for an honest user to have both a pending delegation and an unrelated pending tx originating from their account.
This policy is probably too draconian and can be used to deny service from regular users. Maybe a better thing to do is verify the auths as they enter the pool, then when txs are included on chain, purge all pending txs with that auth.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I ended up relaxing the requirement slightly so accounts with a pending delegation can originate 1 tx. This matches what is offered for accounts with deployed delegations while avoiding the costly state lookup for every account in a 7702 tx.