nimbus-eth1/tests/macro_assembler.nim

409 lines
12 KiB
Nim
Raw Normal View History

2023-11-01 10:32:09 +07:00
# Nimbus
aristo: fork support via layers/txframes (#2960) * aristo: fork support via layers/txframes This change reorganises how the database is accessed: instead holding a "current frame" in the database object, a dag of frames is created based on the "base frame" held in `AristoDbRef` and all database access happens through this frame, which can be thought of as a consistent point-in-time snapshot of the database based on a particular fork of the chain. In the code, "frame", "transaction" and "layer" is used to denote more or less the same thing: a dag of stacked changes backed by the on-disk database. Although this is not a requirement, in practice each frame holds the change set of a single block - as such, the frame and its ancestors leading up to the on-disk state represents the state of the database after that block has been applied. "committing" means merging the changes to its parent frame so that the difference between them is lost and only the cumulative changes remain - this facility enables frames to be combined arbitrarily wherever they are in the dag. In particular, it becomes possible to consolidate a set of changes near the base of the dag and commit those to disk without having to re-do the in-memory frames built on top of them - this is useful for "flattening" a set of changes during a base update and sending those to storage without having to perform a block replay on top. Looking at abstractions, a side effect of this change is that the KVT and Aristo are brought closer together by considering them to be part of the "same" atomic transaction set - the way the code gets organised, applying a block and saving it to the kvt happens in the same "logical" frame - therefore, discarding the frame discards both the aristo and kvt changes at the same time - likewise, they are persisted to disk together - this makes reasoning about the database somewhat easier but has the downside of increased memory usage, something that perhaps will need addressing in the future. Because the code reasons more strictly about frames and the state of the persisted database, it also makes it more visible where ForkedChain should be used and where it is still missing - in particular, frames represent a single branch of history while forkedchain manages multiple parallel forks - user-facing services such as the RPC should use the latter, ie until it has been finalized, a getBlock request should consider all forks and not just the blocks in the canonical head branch. Another advantage of this approach is that `AristoDbRef` conceptually becomes more simple - removing its tracking of the "current" transaction stack simplifies reasoning about what can go wrong since this state now has to be passed around in the form of `AristoTxRef` - as such, many of the tests and facilities in the code that were dealing with "stack inconsistency" are now structurally prevented from happening. The test suite will need significant refactoring after this change. Once this change has been merged, there are several follow-ups to do: * there's no mechanism for keeping frames up to date as they get committed or rolled back - TODO * naming is confused - many names for the same thing for legacy reason * forkedchain support is still missing in lots of code * clean up redundant logic based on previous designs - in particular the debug and introspection code no longer makes sense * the way change sets are stored will probably need revisiting - because it's a stack of changes where each frame must be interrogated to find an on-disk value, with a base distance of 128 we'll at minimum have to perform 128 frame lookups for *every* database interaction - regardless, the "dag-like" nature will stay * dispose and commit are poorly defined and perhaps redundant - in theory, one could simply let the GC collect abandoned frames etc, though it's likely an explicit mechanism will remain useful, so they stay for now More about the changes: * `AristoDbRef` gains a `txRef` field (todo: rename) that "more or less" corresponds to the old `balancer` field * `AristoDbRef.stack` is gone - instead, there's a chain of `AristoTxRef` objects that hold their respective "layer" which has the actual changes * No more reasoning about "top" and "stack" - instead, each `AristoTxRef` can be a "head" that "more or less" corresponds to the old single-history `top` notion and its stack * `level` still represents "distance to base" - it's computed from the parent chain instead of being stored * one has to be careful not to use frames where forkedchain was intended - layers are only for a single branch of history! * fix layer vtop after rollback * engine fix * Fix test_txpool * Fix test_rpc * Fix copyright year * fix simulator * Fix copyright year * Fix copyright year * Fix tracer * Fix infinite recursion bug * Remove aristo and kvt empty files * Fic copyright year * Fix fc chain_kvt * ForkedChain refactoring * Fix merge master conflict * Fix copyright year * Reparent txFrame * Fix test * Fix txFrame reparent again * Cleanup and fix test * UpdateBase bugfix and fix test * Fixe newPayload bug discovered by hive * Fix engine api fcu * Clean up call template, chain_kvt, andn txguid * Fix copyright year * work around base block loading issue * Add test * Fix updateHead bug * Fix updateBase bug * Change func commitBase to proc commitBase * Touch up and fix debug mode crash --------- Co-authored-by: jangko <jangko128@gmail.com>
2025-02-06 08:04:50 +01:00
# Copyright (c) 2019-2025 Status Research & Development GmbH
2023-11-01 10:32:09 +07:00
# Licensed under either of
# * Apache License, version 2.0, ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or
# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
# * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or
# http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
# at your option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed except
# according to those terms.
import
std/[macrocache, strutils],
eth/common/[keys, transaction_utils],
unittest2,
chronicles,
stew/byteutils,
stew/shims/macros
import
../execution_chain/db/ledger,
../execution_chain/evm/types,
../execution_chain/evm/interpreter/op_codes,
../execution_chain/evm/internals,
../execution_chain/transaction/[call_common, call_evm],
../execution_chain/evm/state,
../execution_chain/core/pow/difficulty
from ../execution_chain/db/aristo
import EmptyBlob
# Ditto, for GasPrice.
import ../execution_chain/transaction except GasPrice
import ../tools/common/helpers except LogLevel
export byteutils
{.experimental: "dynamicBindSym".}
type
VMWord* = array[32, byte]
Storage* = tuple[key, val: VMWord]
Assembler* = object
title* : string
stack* : seq[VMWord]
memory* : seq[VMWord]
storage* : seq[Storage]
code* : seq[byte]
logs* : seq[Log]
success* : bool
gasUsed* : Opt[GasInt]
data* : seq[byte]
output* : seq[byte]
MacroAssembler = object
setup : NimNode
asmBlock : Assembler
forkStr : string
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
const
idToOpcode = CacheTable"NimbusMacroAssembler"
static:
for n in Op:
idToOpcode[$n] = newLit(ord(n))
2022-02-27 12:21:46 +07:00
2022-02-05 16:17:41 +07:00
# EIP-4399 new opcode
2022-02-27 12:21:46 +07:00
idToOpcode["PrevRandao"] = newLit(ord(Difficulty))
proc validateVMWord(val: string, n: NimNode): VMWord =
if val.len <= 2 or val.len > 66: error("invalid hex string", n)
if not (val[0] == '0' and val[1] == 'x'): error("invalid hex string", n)
let zerosLen = 64 - (val.len - 2)
let value = repeat('0', zerosLen) & val.substr(2)
hexToByteArray(value, result)
proc validateVMWord(val: NimNode): VMWord =
val.expectKind(nnkStrLit)
validateVMWord(val.strVal, val)
proc parseVMWords(list: NimNode): seq[VMWord] =
result = @[]
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
for val in list:
result.add validateVMWord(val)
proc validateStorage(val: NimNode): Storage =
val.expectKind(nnkCall)
val[0].expectKind(nnkStrLit)
val[1].expectKind(nnkStmtList)
2019-03-13 22:36:54 +01:00
doAssert(val[1].len == 1)
val[1][0].expectKind(nnkStrLit)
result = (validateVMWord(val[0]), validateVMWord(val[1][0]))
proc parseStorage(list: NimNode): seq[Storage] =
result = @[]
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
for val in list:
result.add validateStorage(val)
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
proc parseStringLiteral(node: NimNode): string =
let strNode = node[0]
strNode.expectKind(nnkStrLit)
strNode.strVal
proc parseSuccess(list: NimNode): bool =
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
list[0].expectKind(nnkIdent)
$list[0] == "true"
proc parseData(list: NimNode): seq[byte] =
result = @[]
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
for n in list:
n.expectKind(nnkStrLit)
result.add hexToSeqByte(n.strVal)
proc parseLog(node: NimNode): Log =
node.expectKind({nnkPar, nnkTupleConstr})
for item in node:
item.expectKind(nnkExprColonExpr)
let label = item[0].strVal
let body = item[1]
case label.normalize
of "address":
body.expectKind(nnkStrLit)
let value = body.strVal
if value.len < 20:
error("bad address format", body)
hexToByteArray(value, result.address.data)
of "topics":
body.expectKind(nnkBracket)
for x in body:
result.topics.add Topic validateVMWord(x.strVal, x)
of "data":
result.data = hexToSeqByte(body.strVal)
else:error("unknown log section '" & label & "'", item[0])
proc parseLogs(list: NimNode): seq[Log] =
result = @[]
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
for n in list:
result.add parseLog(n)
proc validateOpcode(sym: NimNode) =
if $sym notin idToOpcode:
error("unknown opcode '" & $sym & "'", sym)
proc addOpCode(code: var seq[byte], node, params: NimNode) =
let opcode = Op(idToOpcode[$node].intVal)
case opcode
of Push1..Push32:
if params.len != 1:
error("expect 1 param, but got " & $params.len, node)
let paramWidth = (opcode.ord - 95) * 2
params[0].expectKind nnkStrLit
var val = params[0].strVal
if val[0] == '0' and val[1] == 'x':
val = val.substr(2)
if val.len != paramWidth:
error("expected param with " & $paramWidth & " hex digits, got " & $val.len, node)
code.add byte(opcode)
code.add hexToSeqByte(val)
else:
error("invalid hex format", node)
else:
if params.len > 0:
error("there should be no param for this instruction", node)
code.add byte(opcode)
proc parseCode(codes: NimNode): seq[byte] =
let emptyNode = newEmptyNode()
codes.expectKind nnkStmtList
for pc, line in codes:
line.expectKind({nnkCommand, nnkIdent, nnkStrLit})
if line.kind == nnkStrLit:
result.add hexToSeqByte(line.strVal)
elif line.kind == nnkIdent:
let sym = bindSym(line)
validateOpcode(sym)
result.addOpCode(sym, emptyNode)
elif line.kind == nnkCommand:
let sym = bindSym(line[0])
validateOpcode(sym)
var params = newNimNode(nnkBracket)
for i in 1 ..< line.len:
params.add line[i]
result.addOpCode(sym, params)
else:
error("unknown syntax: " & line.toStrLit.strVal, line)
proc parseFork(fork: NimNode): string =
fork[0].expectKind({nnkIdent, nnkStrLit})
fork[0].strVal
proc parseGasUsed(gas: NimNode): Opt[GasInt] =
2020-11-25 18:23:02 +07:00
gas[0].expectKind(nnkIntLit)
result = Opt.some(GasInt gas[0].intVal)
2020-11-25 18:23:02 +07:00
proc parseAssembler(list: NimNode): MacroAssembler =
result.forkStr = "Frontier"
result.asmBlock.success = true
result.asmBlock.gasUsed = Opt.none(GasInt)
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
for callSection in list:
callSection.expectKind(nnkCall)
let label = callSection[0].strVal
let body = callSection[1]
case label.normalize
of "title" : result.asmBlock.title = parseStringLiteral(body)
of "code" : result.asmBlock.code = parseCode(body)
of "memory" : result.asmBlock.memory = parseVMWords(body)
of "stack" : result.asmBlock.stack = parseVMWords(body)
of "storage": result.asmBlock.storage = parseStorage(body)
of "logs" : result.asmBlock.logs = parseLogs(body)
of "success": result.asmBlock.success = parseSuccess(body)
of "data" : result.asmBlock.data = parseData(body)
of "output" : result.asmBlock.output = parseData(body)
of "gasused": result.asmBlock.gasUsed = parseGasUsed(body)
of "fork" : result.forkStr = parseFork(body)
of "setup" : result.setup = body
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
else: error("unknown section '" & label & "'", callSection[0])
type VMProxy = tuple[sym: NimNode, pr: NimNode]
proc generateVMProxy(masm: MacroAssembler): VMProxy =
let
vmProxySym = genSym(nskProc, "vmProxy")
body = newLitFixed(masm.asmBlock)
setup = if masm.setup.isNil:
newEmptyNode()
else:
masm.setup
vmState = ident("vmState")
fork = masm.forkStr
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
vmProxyProc = quote do:
proc `vmProxySym`(): bool =
let `vmState` = initVMEnv(`fork`)
`setup`
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
let boa = `body`
runVM(`vmState`, boa)
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
(vmProxySym, vmProxyProc)
proc generateAssemblerTest(masm: MacroAssembler): NimNode =
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
let
(vmProxySym, vmProxyProc) = generateVMProxy(masm)
title: string = masm.asmBlock.title
result = quote do:
test `title`:
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
`vmProxyProc`
{.gcsafe.}:
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
check `vmProxySym`()
when defined(macro_assembler_debug):
echo result.toStrLit.strVal
const
codeAddress = address"460121576cc7df020759730751f92bd62fd78dd6"
coinbase = address"bb7b8287f3f0a933474a79eae42cbca977791171"
proc initVMEnv*(network: string): BaseVMState =
let
conf = getChainConfig(network)
cdb = DefaultDbMemory.newCoreDbRef()
com = CommonRef.new(
cdb,
nil, conf,
conf.chainId.NetworkId)
parent = Header(stateRoot: EMPTY_ROOT_HASH)
parentHash = rlpHash(parent)
header = Header(
number: 1'u64,
stateRoot: EMPTY_ROOT_HASH,
parentHash: parentHash,
coinbase: coinbase,
timestamp: EthTime(0x1234),
difficulty: 1003.u256,
gasLimit: 100_000
)
aristo: fork support via layers/txframes (#2960) * aristo: fork support via layers/txframes This change reorganises how the database is accessed: instead holding a "current frame" in the database object, a dag of frames is created based on the "base frame" held in `AristoDbRef` and all database access happens through this frame, which can be thought of as a consistent point-in-time snapshot of the database based on a particular fork of the chain. In the code, "frame", "transaction" and "layer" is used to denote more or less the same thing: a dag of stacked changes backed by the on-disk database. Although this is not a requirement, in practice each frame holds the change set of a single block - as such, the frame and its ancestors leading up to the on-disk state represents the state of the database after that block has been applied. "committing" means merging the changes to its parent frame so that the difference between them is lost and only the cumulative changes remain - this facility enables frames to be combined arbitrarily wherever they are in the dag. In particular, it becomes possible to consolidate a set of changes near the base of the dag and commit those to disk without having to re-do the in-memory frames built on top of them - this is useful for "flattening" a set of changes during a base update and sending those to storage without having to perform a block replay on top. Looking at abstractions, a side effect of this change is that the KVT and Aristo are brought closer together by considering them to be part of the "same" atomic transaction set - the way the code gets organised, applying a block and saving it to the kvt happens in the same "logical" frame - therefore, discarding the frame discards both the aristo and kvt changes at the same time - likewise, they are persisted to disk together - this makes reasoning about the database somewhat easier but has the downside of increased memory usage, something that perhaps will need addressing in the future. Because the code reasons more strictly about frames and the state of the persisted database, it also makes it more visible where ForkedChain should be used and where it is still missing - in particular, frames represent a single branch of history while forkedchain manages multiple parallel forks - user-facing services such as the RPC should use the latter, ie until it has been finalized, a getBlock request should consider all forks and not just the blocks in the canonical head branch. Another advantage of this approach is that `AristoDbRef` conceptually becomes more simple - removing its tracking of the "current" transaction stack simplifies reasoning about what can go wrong since this state now has to be passed around in the form of `AristoTxRef` - as such, many of the tests and facilities in the code that were dealing with "stack inconsistency" are now structurally prevented from happening. The test suite will need significant refactoring after this change. Once this change has been merged, there are several follow-ups to do: * there's no mechanism for keeping frames up to date as they get committed or rolled back - TODO * naming is confused - many names for the same thing for legacy reason * forkedchain support is still missing in lots of code * clean up redundant logic based on previous designs - in particular the debug and introspection code no longer makes sense * the way change sets are stored will probably need revisiting - because it's a stack of changes where each frame must be interrogated to find an on-disk value, with a base distance of 128 we'll at minimum have to perform 128 frame lookups for *every* database interaction - regardless, the "dag-like" nature will stay * dispose and commit are poorly defined and perhaps redundant - in theory, one could simply let the GC collect abandoned frames etc, though it's likely an explicit mechanism will remain useful, so they stay for now More about the changes: * `AristoDbRef` gains a `txRef` field (todo: rename) that "more or less" corresponds to the old `balancer` field * `AristoDbRef.stack` is gone - instead, there's a chain of `AristoTxRef` objects that hold their respective "layer" which has the actual changes * No more reasoning about "top" and "stack" - instead, each `AristoTxRef` can be a "head" that "more or less" corresponds to the old single-history `top` notion and its stack * `level` still represents "distance to base" - it's computed from the parent chain instead of being stored * one has to be careful not to use frames where forkedchain was intended - layers are only for a single branch of history! * fix layer vtop after rollback * engine fix * Fix test_txpool * Fix test_rpc * Fix copyright year * fix simulator * Fix copyright year * Fix copyright year * Fix tracer * Fix infinite recursion bug * Remove aristo and kvt empty files * Fic copyright year * Fix fc chain_kvt * ForkedChain refactoring * Fix merge master conflict * Fix copyright year * Reparent txFrame * Fix test * Fix txFrame reparent again * Cleanup and fix test * UpdateBase bugfix and fix test * Fixe newPayload bug discovered by hive * Fix engine api fcu * Clean up call template, chain_kvt, andn txguid * Fix copyright year * work around base block loading issue * Add test * Fix updateHead bug * Fix updateBase bug * Change func commitBase to proc commitBase * Touch up and fix debug mode crash --------- Co-authored-by: jangko <jangko128@gmail.com>
2025-02-06 08:04:50 +01:00
BaseVMState.new(parent, header, com, com.db.baseTxFrame())
proc verifyAsmResult(vmState: BaseVMState, boa: Assembler, asmResult: DebugCallResult): bool =
let com = vmState.com
if not asmResult.isError:
if boa.success == false:
error "different success value", expected=boa.success, actual=true
return false
else:
if boa.success == true:
error "different success value", expected=boa.success, actual=false
return false
if boa.gasUsed.isSome:
if boa.gasUsed.get != asmResult.gasUsed:
error "different gasUsed", expected=boa.gasUsed.get, actual=asmResult.gasUsed
2020-11-25 18:23:02 +07:00
return false
if boa.stack.len != asmResult.stack.len:
error "different stack len", expected=boa.stack.len, actual=asmResult.stack.len
return false
for i, v in asmResult.stack:
let actual = v.dumpHex()
let val = boa.stack[i].toHex()
if actual != val:
error "different stack value", idx=i, expected=val, actual=actual
return false
const chunkLen = 32
let numChunks = asmResult.memory.len div chunkLen
if numChunks != boa.memory.len:
error "different memory len", expected=boa.memory.len, actual=numChunks
return false
for i in 0 ..< numChunks:
let actual = asmResult.memory.bytes.toOpenArray(i * chunkLen, (i + 1) * chunkLen - 1).toHex()
let mem = boa.memory[i].toHex()
if mem != actual:
error "different memory value", idx=i, expected=mem, actual=actual
return false
var ledger = vmState.ledger
ledger.persist()
let
aristo: fork support via layers/txframes (#2960) * aristo: fork support via layers/txframes This change reorganises how the database is accessed: instead holding a "current frame" in the database object, a dag of frames is created based on the "base frame" held in `AristoDbRef` and all database access happens through this frame, which can be thought of as a consistent point-in-time snapshot of the database based on a particular fork of the chain. In the code, "frame", "transaction" and "layer" is used to denote more or less the same thing: a dag of stacked changes backed by the on-disk database. Although this is not a requirement, in practice each frame holds the change set of a single block - as such, the frame and its ancestors leading up to the on-disk state represents the state of the database after that block has been applied. "committing" means merging the changes to its parent frame so that the difference between them is lost and only the cumulative changes remain - this facility enables frames to be combined arbitrarily wherever they are in the dag. In particular, it becomes possible to consolidate a set of changes near the base of the dag and commit those to disk without having to re-do the in-memory frames built on top of them - this is useful for "flattening" a set of changes during a base update and sending those to storage without having to perform a block replay on top. Looking at abstractions, a side effect of this change is that the KVT and Aristo are brought closer together by considering them to be part of the "same" atomic transaction set - the way the code gets organised, applying a block and saving it to the kvt happens in the same "logical" frame - therefore, discarding the frame discards both the aristo and kvt changes at the same time - likewise, they are persisted to disk together - this makes reasoning about the database somewhat easier but has the downside of increased memory usage, something that perhaps will need addressing in the future. Because the code reasons more strictly about frames and the state of the persisted database, it also makes it more visible where ForkedChain should be used and where it is still missing - in particular, frames represent a single branch of history while forkedchain manages multiple parallel forks - user-facing services such as the RPC should use the latter, ie until it has been finalized, a getBlock request should consider all forks and not just the blocks in the canonical head branch. Another advantage of this approach is that `AristoDbRef` conceptually becomes more simple - removing its tracking of the "current" transaction stack simplifies reasoning about what can go wrong since this state now has to be passed around in the form of `AristoTxRef` - as such, many of the tests and facilities in the code that were dealing with "stack inconsistency" are now structurally prevented from happening. The test suite will need significant refactoring after this change. Once this change has been merged, there are several follow-ups to do: * there's no mechanism for keeping frames up to date as they get committed or rolled back - TODO * naming is confused - many names for the same thing for legacy reason * forkedchain support is still missing in lots of code * clean up redundant logic based on previous designs - in particular the debug and introspection code no longer makes sense * the way change sets are stored will probably need revisiting - because it's a stack of changes where each frame must be interrogated to find an on-disk value, with a base distance of 128 we'll at minimum have to perform 128 frame lookups for *every* database interaction - regardless, the "dag-like" nature will stay * dispose and commit are poorly defined and perhaps redundant - in theory, one could simply let the GC collect abandoned frames etc, though it's likely an explicit mechanism will remain useful, so they stay for now More about the changes: * `AristoDbRef` gains a `txRef` field (todo: rename) that "more or less" corresponds to the old `balancer` field * `AristoDbRef.stack` is gone - instead, there's a chain of `AristoTxRef` objects that hold their respective "layer" which has the actual changes * No more reasoning about "top" and "stack" - instead, each `AristoTxRef` can be a "head" that "more or less" corresponds to the old single-history `top` notion and its stack * `level` still represents "distance to base" - it's computed from the parent chain instead of being stored * one has to be careful not to use frames where forkedchain was intended - layers are only for a single branch of history! * fix layer vtop after rollback * engine fix * Fix test_txpool * Fix test_rpc * Fix copyright year * fix simulator * Fix copyright year * Fix copyright year * Fix tracer * Fix infinite recursion bug * Remove aristo and kvt empty files * Fic copyright year * Fix fc chain_kvt * ForkedChain refactoring * Fix merge master conflict * Fix copyright year * Reparent txFrame * Fix test * Fix txFrame reparent again * Cleanup and fix test * UpdateBase bugfix and fix test * Fixe newPayload bug discovered by hive * Fix engine api fcu * Clean up call template, chain_kvt, andn txguid * Fix copyright year * work around base block loading issue * Add test * Fix updateHead bug * Fix updateBase bug * Change func commitBase to proc commitBase * Touch up and fix debug mode crash --------- Co-authored-by: jangko <jangko128@gmail.com>
2025-02-06 08:04:50 +01:00
al = com.db.baseTxFrame()
accPath = keccak256(codeAddress.data)
for kv in boa.storage:
let key = kv[0].toHex()
let val = kv[1].toHex()
let slotKey = UInt256.fromBytesBE(kv[0]).toBytesBE.keccak256
let data = al.slotFetch(accPath, slotKey).valueOr: default(UInt256)
let actual = data.toBytesBE().toHex
if val != actual:
error "storage has different value", key=key, expected=val, actual
return false
let logs = vmState.getAndClearLogEntries()
if logs.len != boa.logs.len:
error "different logs len", expected=boa.logs.len, actual=logs.len
return false
for i, log in boa.logs:
let eAddr = log.address.toHex()
let aAddr = logs[i].address.toHex()
if eAddr != aAddr:
error "different address", expected=eAddr, actual=aAddr, idx=i
return false
let eData = log.data.toHex()
let aData = logs[i].data.toHex()
if eData != aData:
error "different data", expected=eData, actual=aData, idx=i
return false
if log.topics.len != logs[i].topics.len:
error "different topics len", expected=log.topics.len, actual=logs[i].topics.len, idx=i
return false
for x, t in log.topics:
let eTopic = t.toHex()
let aTopic = logs[i].topics[x].toHex()
if eTopic != aTopic:
error "different topic in log entry", expected=eTopic, actual=aTopic, logIdx=i, topicIdx=x
return false
if boa.output.len > 0:
let actual = asmResult.output.toHex()
let expected = boa.output.toHex()
if expected != actual:
error "different output detected", expected=expected, actual=actual
return false
result = true
proc createSignedTx(payload: seq[byte], chainId: ChainId): Transaction =
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
let privateKey = PrivateKey.fromHex("7a28b5ba57c53603b0b07b56bba752f7784bf506fa95edc395f5cf6c7514fe9d")[]
let unsignedTx = Transaction(
txType: TxEip4844,
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
nonce: 0,
gasPrice: 1.GasInt,
gasLimit: 500_000_000.GasInt,
to: Opt.some codeAddress,
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
value: 500.u256,
payload: payload,
chainId: chainId,
versionedHashes: @[VersionedHash(EMPTY_UNCLE_HASH), VersionedHash(EMPTY_SHA3)]
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
)
signTransaction(unsignedTx, privateKey, false)
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
proc runVM*(vmState: BaseVMState, boa: Assembler): bool =
let
com = vmState.com
vmState.mutateLedger:
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
db.setCode(codeAddress, boa.code)
db.setBalance(codeAddress, 1_000_000.u256)
2022-12-02 11:39:12 +07:00
let tx = createSignedTx(boa.data, com.chainId)
let asmResult = testCallEvm(tx, tx.recoverSender().expect("valid signature"), vmState)
verifyAsmResult(vmState, boa, asmResult)
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
macro assembler*(list: untyped): untyped =
Added basic async capabilities for vm2. (#1260) * Added basic async capabilities for vm2. This is a whole new Git branch, not the same one as last time (https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1250) - there wasn't much worth salvaging. Main differences: I didn't do the "each opcode has to specify an async handler" junk that I put in last time. Instead, in oph_memory.nim you can see sloadOp calling asyncChainTo and passing in an async operation. That async operation is then run by the execCallOrCreate (or asyncExecCallOrCreate) code in interpreter_dispatch.nim. In the test code, the (previously existing) macro called "assembler" now allows you to add a section called "initialStorage", specifying fake data to be used by the EVM computation run by that test. (In the long run we'll obviously want to write tests that for-real use the JSON-RPC API to asynchronously fetch data; for now, this was just an expedient way to write a basic unit test that exercises the async-EVM code pathway.) There's also a new macro called "concurrentAssemblers" that allows you to write a test that runs multiple assemblers concurrently (and then waits for them all to finish). There's one example test using this, in test_op_memory_lazy.nim, though you can't actually see it doing so unless you uncomment some echo statements in async_operations.nim (in which case you can see the two concurrently running EVM computations each printing out what they're doing, and you'll see that they interleave). A question: is it possible to make EVMC work asynchronously? (For now, this code compiles and "make test" passes even if ENABLE_EVMC is turned on, but it doesn't actually work asynchronously, it just falls back on doing the usual synchronous EVMC thing. See FIXME-asyncAndEvmc.) * Moved the AsyncOperationFactory to the BaseVMState object. * Made the AsyncOperationFactory into a table of fn pointers. Also ditched the plain-data Vm2AsyncOperation type; it wasn't really serving much purpose. Instead, the pendingAsyncOperation field directly contains the Future. * Removed the hasStorage idea. It's not the right solution to the "how do we know whether we still need to fetch the storage value or not?" problem. I haven't implemented the right solution yet, but at least we're better off not putting in a wrong one. * Added/modified/removed some comments. (Based on feedback on the PR.) * Removed the waitFor from execCallOrCreate. There was some back-and-forth in the PR regarding whether nested waitFor calls are acceptable: https://github.com/status-im/nimbus-eth1/pull/1260#discussion_r998587449 The eventual decision was to just change the waitFor to a doAssert (since we probably won't want this extra functionality when running synchronously anyway) to make sure that the Future is already finished.
2022-11-01 11:35:46 -04:00
result = parseAssembler(list).generateAssemblerTest()
macro evmByteCode*(list: untyped): untyped =
list.expectKind nnkStmtList
var code = parseCode(list)
result = newLitFixed(code)