feat: enforce sorted and unique storage slots#2154
Merged
PhilippGackstatter merged 8 commits intonextfrom Dec 12, 2025
Merged
Conversation
bobbinth
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2025
Contributor
bobbinth
left a comment
bobbinth
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good! Thank you! i left a couple of questions inline.
mmagician
approved these changes
Dec 11, 2025
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Following up to #2025, this adds missing checks that ensure storage slots are sorted and unique in Rust APIs and in the kernel.
AccountStorageandAccountStorageHeader.$kernel::accountby implementing slot ID comparison.I tried adding a test that triggers the newly added sorting/uniqueness error in the tx kernel, but wasn't able to find a way to bypass the sorting/uniqueness checks in the Rust APIs that are called when preparing a transaction.
I added a test to make sure the slot ID comparison in MASM is correct, so I think the overall approach should work as intended. It would still be nice to come up with a way to test all tx kernel errors, but I'm not yet sure how.
part of #1724