Skip to content

Invalid block if system contract is empty on call or call fails #1183

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: forks/prague
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

marioevz
Copy link
Member

@marioevz marioevz commented Apr 4, 2025

What was wrong?

EIPs 7002 and 7251 have been updated to define the expected outcome in case of execution failure or code absence:

ethereum/EIPs#9508
ethereum/EIPs#9582

How was it fixed?

Conditions for zero-length code and execution failure have been added to the system contract calls.

I'm not sure if this change affects EIP-2935, although I think we should not cherry-pick which system-contracts invalidate a block and which don't.

Cute Animal Picture

Put a link to a cute animal picture inside the parenthesis-->

@gurukamath
Copy link
Collaborator

Consider re-directing this PR at the forks/prague branch instead. That has the latest spec updates including the latest re-factors from Prague.

@marioevz
Copy link
Member Author

Might need to take another look at this since it might modify behavior of prior system contracts, but according to this message https://discord.com/channels/595666850260713488/1351309992837251195/1361391543595962669, that should not be the case.

@marioevz marioevz force-pushed the invalid-block-on-missing-system-contracts branch from bea2827 to 739829b Compare April 15, 2025 12:47
@marioevz marioevz changed the base branch from devnets/prague/6 to forks/prague April 15, 2025 12:48
@marioevz marioevz force-pushed the invalid-block-on-missing-system-contracts branch from 739829b to 28fd22f Compare April 15, 2025 14:17
@marioevz marioevz force-pushed the invalid-block-on-missing-system-contracts branch from 28fd22f to c159057 Compare April 16, 2025 21:14
@marioevz
Copy link
Member Author

Ready to review, it's now independent of #1182 since I've removed the commits from that branch, although it will have a conflict because it touches the same code as that PR.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants