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

Going through the unverified contracts during migration #1562

Open
kuzdogan opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Going through the unverified contracts during migration #1562

kuzdogan opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees

Comments

@kuzdogan
Copy link
Member

kuzdogan commented Aug 15, 2024

When moving from the old infra to GCP, we had to re-verify all contracts on the GCP instance. This is because the old infra only had files (after the incident, we had the backups) and to have the DB data, we need to compile them all and verify.

In the end we verified +5M contracts, this is the final sync table, ordered by not_synced, totals on the last row:

Table
chain_id synced not_synced total_sync_status
42 0 45231 45231
1 684901 35830 720731
5 151834 942 152776
69 10963 684 11647
42161 505612 240 505852
11155111 279989 124 280113
8453 688097 115 688212
5700 69 106 175
84531 49732 98 49830
56 10665 96 10761
4 124145 95 124240
80001 207251 71 207322
137 89574 56 89630
28 364 50 414
3 76503 47 76550
10243 16 47 63
10 1923456 36 1923492
1149 0 32 32
42220 3727 24 3751
42261 215 21 236
43113 16160 21 16181
100 8244 19 8263
82 818 19 837
122 467 17 484
44787 6304 17 6321
83 930 15 945
23294 142 15 157
71402 89 15 104
1101 139 14 153
71401 262 13 275
77 1140 12 1152
0 0 11 11
11155420 12004 11 12015
9001 283 10 293
7700 862 9 871
8217 19 9 28
202401 0 9 9
10200 257 8 265
534352 117 8 125
42262 77 7 84
43114 15937 7 15944
2222 1582 7 1589
7672 137 6 143
13337 321 6 327
106 115 6 121
369 130902 5 130907
97 12012 5 12017
1115 712 5 717
41 987 5 992
420 5235 4 5239
888 66 4 70
288 416 4 420
17000 11339 4 11343
5000 139 3 142
51 41 3 44
40 1444 3 1447
1313161555 166 2 168
9996 126 2 128
23295 189 2 191
314 74 2 76
62621 33 2 35
666666666 58 2 60
1116 3698 2 3700
7701 172 2 174
9977 0 2 2
1313161554 1101 2 1103
999 55 1 56
252 32 1 33
295 7 1 8
11297108099 547 1 548
1285 96 1 97
7001 247 1 248
11297108109 196 1 197
9000 159 1 160
57000 6 1 7
1287 245 1 246
2037 33 1 34
421613 20583 1 20584
421611 4212 1 4213
30 26 1 27
53935 55 1 56
73799 122 1 123
1433 0 1 1
2522 6 0 6
4000 3 0 3
8 12 0 12
37714555429 36 0 36
534 11 0 11
11235 3 0 3
19 27 0 27
42170 59 0 59
33101 38 0 38
1284 130 0 130
200901 10 0 10
32769 49 0 49
44 3 0 3
335 56 0 56
6321 1 0 1
19011 2 0 2
255 10 0 10
1291 1 0 1
710420 46 0 46
7000 48 0 48
13381 2 0 2
6119 36 0 36
25 138 0 138
648 25 0 25
246 1 0 1
2358 17 0 17
22776 67 0 67
61 43 0 43
78431 3 0 3
39797 5 0 5
999999999 143 0 143
4337 199 0 199
1339 2 0 2
11111 73 0 73
2000 29 0 29
57 65 0 65
59141 3 0 3
5003 1 0 1
222000222 426 0 426
49797 22 0 22
1127469 5 0 5
12898 3 0 3
1001 71 0 71
7777777 122 0 122
35441 9 0 9
570 25 0 25
62320 480 0 480
841 1 0 1
534351 159 0 159
34443 102 0 102
35443 10 0 10
420666 28 0 28
641230 12 0 12
4157 10 0 10
16180 1 0 1
99 15 0 15
167006 7 0 7
660279 3 0 3
333000333 57 0 57
314159 22 0 22
1030 28 0 28
10850 5 0 5
78430 4 0 4
919 87 0 87
80002 1355 0 1355
10849 5 0 5
100010 3 0 3
103090 1 0 1
356256156 6 0 6
62831 1 0 1
7668 70 0 70
111000 2 0 2
432204 23 0 23
212 18 0 18
192837465 15 0 15
2021 1 0 1
84532 57937 0 57937
690 11 0 11
59144 7 0 7
200810 37 0 37
2221 22 0 22
54211 1 0 1
167005 14 0 14
336 13 0 13
4200 4 0 4
10242 25 0 25
17069 10 0 10
421614 1756 0 1756
250 142 0 142
5133646 84318 5217964

Bear in mind there are chains like Ethereum Goerli (5) that are deprecated ie. not supported. Ex-Kovan, now Lukso (42) will not be added as this is an unresolved issue about the chainId collusion.

We need to look at why these contracts don't verify. Some give "There is not contract at 0x...` which means the contract might have been destroyed. Some give "bytecodes don't match" which is weird because how did they get verified in the first place? Some give compiler errors which is also unexpected.

We should categorize these error and go through them. I believe we'll gain a lot of insights and potentially find some bugs with this. The difficult thing is there are a lot of contracts and we have to recognize some patterns, group the contracts and execute and report systematically.

@kuzdogan
Copy link
Member Author

kuzdogan commented Aug 22, 2024

Sharing findings here:

I categorized the failed verifications under the following errors. I am going to share the number of errors for the Mainnet contracts only because with a total of 32k contracts, it's the majority of unverified contracts.

Metadata file not found

Error message: "Metadata file not found. Did you include \"metadata.json\"?"
Contracts in Mainnet: 17

This case is quite unexpected as they indeed don't have any metadata file in the current FS as well as the backups. This is just lost data, it seems.

Abstract contract

Error message: "The compiled contract bytecode is \"0x\". Are you trying to verify an abstract contract?"
Contracts in Mainnet: 8

I fail to understand how these contracts were verified. The compilationTargets are indeed abstract contracts.

Cannot insert contract

Error message: "cannot insert verified_contract address=0x8b2AA451F98cc7eA61f5c462c94eF76CD5F131Cf chainId=369\nerror: unsupported Unicode escape sequence"
Contracts in Mainnet: 7

These contracts seem to contain a \u0000 unicode escape sequence (NULL) in their sources in compiled_contracts. Postgres does not allow this character in jsonb columns.

Cannot generate contract artifacts

Error message: "cannot generate contract artifacts address=0xbdB2691fa62707daf356A6470325C7d7118388E1 chainId=369"
Contracts in Mainnet: 4

Found that these contracts have a different auxdata at the end of their bytecode and the verification process stops incorrectly. Fixed by #1594

Metadata match but not bytecodes

Error message: "contract's metadata hashes match but not the bytecodes. You should add all the files input to the compiler during compilation and remove all others"
Contracts in Mainnet: 5

Turns out they can be verified when they are verified with Import from Etherscan but the verification can't be reproduced via the files saved in the Sourcify repo. This is expected as the bug says exactly this, the info in the metadata does not reproduce the bytecode found onchain.

Selfdesctruct'ed contracts

These contracts return the below error. Upon inspecting couple of them I see the general pattern that these are the SELFDESTRUCTed contracts. I guess there isn't much we can do about it.

Error message: "Chain #1 does not have a contract deployed at 0x6fb34B28Dbb558E3232f0e85a7Cf0537037Ef344"
Contracts in Mainnet: 148

Bytecodes don't match

Error message: "The deployed and recompiled bytecode don't match."
Contracts in Mainnet: 30956

This is the majority of the contracts.

  • One case I found is similar bytecodes but likely different because of the AST changes. IDK how these were verified in the first place
  • Most other ones on Mainnet are proxies. Again, a question how these got verified in the first place.

Compiler Errors

Error message: "Compiler error...(full compiler error output)"
Contracts in Mainnet: 212

Here there can be multiple errors for each contract so it's difficult to get a full number.

These are also weird because it leaves me thinking how did they compile and get verified in the first place? Maybe an issue with the compiler binary platform?

There were couple different errors:

  • "File outside of allowed directories.\nimport "@openzeppelin..."
  • "Expected pragma, import directive or contract/interface/library/struct/enum definition"
  • "Definition of base has to precede definition of derived contract"
  • "Undeclared identifier"

I'll try to debug these a bit to see if I can catch a pattern.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant