-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 318
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
ADR 004: IBC Whitelisting #696
ADR 004: IBC Whitelisting #696
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
great and concise info!
While I think increasing the amount of gas used by that tx is undesirable, as blocks with those txs would be arbitrarily small, is there a way to require the gas price to be really high for createClient
transactions?
edit: that might not be a good solution either, as the fees would have to be burned or something, otherwise validators could still include a createClient
transaction for free as the fee would go to themselves.
|
||
## Proposal | ||
|
||
Fork IBC, and create a store of whitelisted public keys. Only `createClient` txns that are signed by private keys corresponding to whitelisted/stored public keys are deemed valid, and the rest are invalidated. Specific keys will only be required for client creation, and rest of IBC will work as is. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
while a list of keys would probably be simplest, I'm guessing that it's also possible to rely strictly on governance?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is possible. Creation of clients can be strictly restricted to governance
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note: this still requires us having to fork IBC (iiuc)
|
||
## Alternative approaches | ||
|
||
1. Simplest solution is fork to IBC, and add a small change to disallow creation/registration of new clients. Then we can create clients for the chains that we want to allow at genesis, and effectively create a whitelist. However, adding new clients or removing clients is not feasible under this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agree that relying on hardforks for any changes isn't desirable imo. Not being able to move tokens for a few weeks if something weird happens seems like a non-starter.
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | |||
# ADR 004: IBC Whitelist/Allowlist |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[optional] one term is sufficient to describe this. Slight preference for Allowlist
because rails/rails#33677
# ADR 004: IBC Whitelist/Allowlist | |
# ADR 004: IBC Allowlist |
Note: accepting this suggestion implies updating the filename too. Preferably: adr-004-ibc-allowlist.md
to conform to #772
Co-authored-by: Rootul P <[email protected]>
|
||
1. Simplest solution is fork to IBC, and add a small change to disallow creation/registration of new clients. Then we can create clients for the chains that we want to allow at genesis, and effectively create a whitelist. However, adding new clients or removing clients is not feasible under this. | ||
|
||
2. Add a middleware to revert packets from non-whitelisted chains. This still adds state bloat since clients and corresponding connections are allowed to be established, but adds economic incentive in terms of lost gas from the malicious user/actor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another approach that @zmanian mentioned a while ago, is to allow only transfers with Celestia tokens as denomination.
|
||
## Context | ||
|
||
While enabling IBC, we want to connect, and allow messages from selected chains. However, we don't want the ability for an arbitrary entity to create an IBC connection with a zone. This is so that we can keep the state machine as minimal and focused as possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we first need to fully understand the overhead in the state machine of IBC and its pricing.
Given that we opted to only allow Celestia tokens (ref: #1219), do we want to repurpose this ADR towards that or should we simply close this? |
good question, I don't have a strong opinion. I don't think its of the highest priority either way. The most important thing ofc is that we will have to document the IBC decision somewhere where users/UI implementers/relayers will see it, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to quickly document it internally like in an ADR. The error/event thrown by the token filter is also very nice, so even those who don't read the docs will likely see something. |
Ok I think we can close this and I will open a small ADR documenting the decision |
@cmwaters can you link the ADR on why we have a token filter? I couldn't find it Update: nvm, I did find #1125 (comment) which may be the next closest thing |
ADR version of #235