SIMD-0152: Precompiles

proposals/0152-precompiles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
+---
+simd: '0152'
+title: Precompiles
+authors:
+  - Emanuele Cesena
+category: Standard
+type: Core
+status: Draft
+created: 2024-06-03
+feature:
+supersedes:
+superseded-by:
+extends:
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Define a unified behavior for precompiles, and highlight a few minor
+changes to the existing precompiles to minimize differences.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Precompiles are special native programs designed to verify additional
+transaction signatures.
+They run without the VM and without loading any account, and they can access
+data from other instructions, within the same transaction.
+
+At the time of writing, two precompiles exist to verify Ed25519 and
+Ethereum-like Secp256k1 signatures, and another one is being proposed to
+support Secp256r1 signatures for FIDO Passkeys.
+
+Historically, the two precompiles were built at different times and
+by different people, so naturally there are some subtle differences
+in how they behave, especially in edge cases.
+
+The main goal of this document is to provide a specification for how
+a precompile should behave, remove differences and provide guidelines
+for future proposals.
+
+In addition, we highlight 3 minor changes to the existing precompiles
+that will simplify their behavior and make it easier to develop
+alternative validator clients.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+Leave as is.
+
+## New Terminology
+
+n/a
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+### Generic Precompile
+
+Precompiles are special native programs designed to verify additional
+signatures. Each precompile consists of a single `verify` instruction.
+
+Precompiles are executed right after transaction signature verification,
+they run without the VM and without loading any account.
+
+If a transaction contains more than 8 precompile signatures, it must fail.
+```
+MAX_ALLOWED_PRECOMPILE_SIGNATURES = 8
+```
+
+The precompile instruction `verify` accepts the following data:
+```
+struct PrecompileVerifyInstruction {
+  num_signatures:  u8,                       // Number of signatures to verify
+  padding:         u8,                       // Single byte padding
+  offsets:         Array<PrecompileOffsets>, // Array of offsets
+  additionalData?: Bytes,                    // Optional additional data, e.g.
+                                             // signatures included in the same
+                                             // instruction
+}
+
+struct PrecompileOffsets {
+  signature_offset: u16 LE,                  // Offset to signature
+  signature_instruction_index: u16 LE,       // Instruction index to signature
+  public_key_offset: u16 LE,                 // Offset to public key
+  public_key_instruction_index: u16 LE,      // Instruction index to  public key
+  message_offset: u16 LE,                    // Offset to start of message data
+  message_length: u16 LE,                    // Size of message data
+  message_instruction_index: u16 LE,         // Instruction index to message
+}
+```
+
+The behavior of the precompile instruction `verify` is as follow:
+1. If instruction `data` is empty, return error.
+2. The first byte of `data` is the number of signatures `num_signatures`.
+3. If `num_signatures` is 0, return error.
+4. Expect (enough bytes of `data` for) `num_signatures` instances of
+   `PrecompileOffsets`.
+5. For each signature:
+   a. Read `offsets`: an instance of `PrecompileOffsets`
+   b. Based on the `offsets`, retrieve `signature`, `public_key`, and
+      `message` bytes. If any of the three fails, return error.
+   c. Invoke the actual `sigverify` function. If it fails, return error.
+
+To retrieve `signature`, `public_key`, and `message`:
+1. Get the `instruction_index`-th `instruction_data`
+   - The special value `0xFFFF` means "current instruction"
+   - If the index is invalid, return Error
+2. Return `length` bytes starting from `offset`
+   - If this exceeds the `instruction_data` length, return Error
+
+If the precompile `verify` function returns any error, the whole transaction
+should fail. Therefore, the type of error is irrelevant and is left as an
+implementation detail.
+
+In pseudo-code:
+```
+fn verify() {
+  if data_length == 0 {
+    return Error
+  }
+  num_signatures = data[0]
+  if num_signatures == 0 {
+    return Error
+  }
+  if data_length < (2 + num_signatures * size_of_offsets) {
+    return Error
+  }
+
+  all_tx_data = { data, instruction_datas }
+
+  data_position = 2
+  for i in 0..num_signatures {
+    offsets = (PrecompileOffsets)
+      data[data_position..data_position+size_of_offsets]
+    data_position += size_of_offsets
+
+    signature = get_data_slice(all_tx_data,
+                               offsets.signature_instruction_index,
+                               offsets.signature_offset
+                               signature_length)
+    if !signature {
+      return Error
+    }
+
+    public_key = get_data_slice(all_tx_data,
+                                offsets.public_key_instruction_index,
+                                offsets.public_key_offset,
+                                public_key_length)
+    if !public_key {
+      return Error
+    }
+
+    message = get_data_slice(all_tx_data,
+                             offsets.message_instruction_index,
+                             offsets.message_offset
+                             offsets.message_length)
+    if !message {
+      return Error
+    }
+
+    // sigverify includes validating signature and public_key
+    result = sigverify(signature, public_key, message)
+    if result != Success {
+      return Error
+    }
+  }
+  return Success
+}
+
+fn get_data_slice(all_tx_data, instruction_index, offset, length) {
+  // Get the right instruction_data
+  if instruction_index == 0xFFFF {
+    instruction_data = all_tx_data.data
+  } else {
+    if instruction_index >= num_instructions {
+      return Error
+    }
+    instruction_data = all_tx_data.instruction_datas[instruction_index]
+  }
+
+  start = offset
+  end = offset + length
+  if end > instruction_data_length {
+    return Error
+  }
+
+  return instruction_data[start..end]
+}
+```
+
+### Changes to `Ed25519SigVerify111111111111111111111111111`
+
+**Summary.**
+
+- Change #1. Replace sigverify function with Dalek `strict_verify()`,
+  the same used for transactions sigverify.
+
+- Change #2. Implement step 3 above: "If `num_signatures` is 0, return error."
+
+**Context.**
+
+In Solana, transactions use Ed25199 signatures, and are validated using
+the so called **strict verify**.
+Compared to "RFC verify", strict verify enforces extra checks against
+(certain types of) malleability.
+
+The Ed25199 precompile currently implements a non-strict verify, so with
+Change #1 we'll make it compatible with the way Solana verifies signatures.
+
+Moreover, the Ed25519 precompile accepts a payload of `[0, 0]` as valid
+(for no good reason), so Change #2 will prevent this anomaly.
+
+Finally, the Ed25519 precompile interleaves retrieving instruction data
+and parsing data types such as signatures and public keys.
+While this goes against this specification and creates unnecessary complexity
+in the return error code, we recommend to NOT change the internal behavior
+(as the return error code doesn't really matter).
+
+**FAQ.**
+
+- **Q: Why does the Ed25199 precompile currently use `verify` instead of
+  `strict_verify`?**
+  A: No good reason, it was built without noticing the difference.
+
+- **Q: If we switch to `strict_verify`, will some of the existing signatures
+  break verification?**
+  A: All signatures created by a "regular" library, i.e. following RFC,
+  pass both `verify` and `strict_verify`.
+  Only carefully crafted signatures can pass `verify` and not `strict_verify`.
+  So this won't break any honest use case.
+
+- **Q: Why not leaving it as is?**
+  A: The `verify` is not well specified. In fact, it's behavior is slightly
+  different in the older version of Dalek that Solana currently uses, versus
+  the latest version of the same library.
+  Trying to replicate all the edge cases is different validators is an
+  unnecessary effort, not worth the risk of exposing different behaviors.
+
+### Changes to `KeccakSecp256k11111111111111111111111111111`
+
+**Summary.**
+
+- Change #3. Implement step 3 above: "If `num_signatures` is 0, return error."
+
+**Context.**
+
+The KeccakSecp256k1 precompile currently accepts an input of `[0]`, as
+in "verify 0 signatures", which is a useless instruction.
+With Change #3 we'll avoid this anomaly.
+
+We note that the KeccakSecp256k1 precompile has a slightly different
+struct for offset, with instruction indexes of a single byte (and, as
+a result, no special value of `0xFFFF` to indicate the "current instruction").
+This is for historical reasons, and since modifying it would break
+existing users, we recommend to NOT change the existing behavior.
+
+## Impact
+
+Reduce the complexity of existing precompiles, to simplify building
+different validator clients.
+
+## Security Considerations
+
+All 3 changes are straightforward and have no impact on security.
+
+## Backwards Compatibility
+
+All 3 changes require a feature gate.