EIP-7928: Add BAL tracking to evm #3836
Open
Conversation
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds BAL tracking into the EVM which enables building block access lists after executing a block.
The BlockAccessListTracker type is added into the BaseVMState type. The tracking is disabled by default and can be enabled with a bool flag. For now I am leaving it disabled and will enable it in a future PR.
I thought about adding the tracker in the LedgerRef type but the bal tracker also needs to collect data in other locations such as when a precompile contract address is called and also when creating and committing call frames for pre and post execution system calls and so I opted to go with this approach. I also looked into using a static bool to switch between tracking enabled and disabled but it turns out that a static bool would require passing the parameter through many layers of code in many places and isn't ideal for maintainability.
I started running the BAL EEST tests against these changes locally and we are correctly building the majority of BALs. There are around 40 failures out of over 400 new test cases.