EIP-7928 BAL does NOT include system contract addresss

[raxhvl]

Metadata

• Hardfork: Amsterdam

What was wrong?

BAL does NOT include system contract address for 4788 pre-execution

Sources

BAL MUST include: System contract addresses accessed during pre/post-execution...

Additional Context

Test case

Function Name	Goal	Setup	Expectation
test_bal_4788_simple	Ensure BAL captures beacon root storage writes during pre-execution system call	Block with 2 normal user transactions: Alice sends 10 wei to Charlie, Bob sends 10 wei to Charlie. At block start (pre-execution), SYSTEM_ADDRESS calls BEACON_ROOTS_ADDRESS to store parent beacon root	BAL MUST include at block_access_index=0: BEACON_ROOTS_ADDRESS with two storage_changes (timestamp slot and beacon root slot), SYSTEM_ADDRESS with empty changes. At block_access_index=1: Alice with nonce_changes, Charlie with balance_changes (10 wei). At block_access_index=2: Bob with nonce_changes, Charlie with balance_changes (20 wei total).

Gets the following error:

BlockAccessListValidationError: Expected address 0xfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffe not found in actual BAL

cc: @nerolation @fselmo

[fselmo]

The linked source states:

System contract addresses accessed during pre/post-execution

What this means is the BEACON_ROOTS_ADDRESS, HISTORY_STORAGE, etc... addresses that were accessed. No client is currently implementing the SYSTEM_ADDRESS as having been accessed otherwise all tests would be failing with BAL mismatches.

That being said, I think perhaps this is under-specified and we could use a clarification in the EIP that addresses this since the sender and target of execution transactions are included (see here). We could use clarification that the SYSTEM_ADDRESS need not be included since it's never accessed and this is considered an exception to the rule.

@nerolation thoughts on being explicit with regard to SYSTEM_ADDRESS in EIP-7928?

[nerolation]

Agree yeah, the more we clarify the better! Will add something on that.

[nerolation]

"...; the system caller address MUST NOT be included unless it performs state access itself."

@fselmo wdyt?

[fselmo]

"...; the system caller address MUST NOT be included unless it performs state access itself."

What do you think about using SYSTEM_ADDRESS (0xfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffe), as it is defined in other EIPs, here?

Looks good to me though 👍🏼

[raxhvl]

unless it performs state access itself.

Is this required? Can SYSTEM_ADDRESS access state though? System address can receive eth transfers and MUST be treated like any other address.

system access being an EOA cannot perform state access so I edited sligtly for clarity:

the SYSTEM_ADDRESS MUST NOT be included except when its own state is actually accessed.

[jochem-brouwer]

LGTM! The system address is the "sender" of these system operations, but they are not sender in the sense of a transaction. If that would be the case, the nonce of the system contract would have to be updated, for instance.

[nerolation]

Fixed here:
ethereum/EIPs#10895

[fselmo]

Closing this as not planned but feel free to re-open if I missed something @raxhvl