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

SIMD-0186: Loaded Transaction Data Size Specification #186

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
155 changes: 155 additions & 0 deletions proposals/0186-loaded-transaction-data-size-specification.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
---
simd: '0186'
title: Loaded Transaction Data Size Specification
authors:
- Hanako Mumei
category: Standard
type: Core
status: Review
created: 2024-10-20
feature: (fill in with feature tracking issues once accepted)
---

## Summary

Before a transaction can be executed, every account it may read from or write to
must be loaded, including any programs it may call. The amount of data a
transaction is allowed to load is capped, and if it exceeds that limit, loading
is aborted. This functionality is already implemented in the validator.

This SIMD defines a new algorithm for calculating the consensus-enforced total
size of loaded transaction data during transaction processing.

## Motivation

Transaction data size accounting is currently unspecified, and the
implementation-defined algorithm used in the Agave client exhibits some
surprising behaviors:

* BPF loaders required by instructions' program IDs are counted against
transaction data size. BPF loaders required by CPI programs are not. If a
required BPF loader is also included in the accounts list, it is counted twice.
* The size of a program owned by LoaderV3 may or may not include the size of its
programdata depending on how the program account is used on the transaction.
Programdata is also itself counted if included in the transaction accounts list.
This means programdata may be counted zero, one, or two times per transaction.
* Due to certain quirks of implementation, loader-owned accounts which do not
contain valid programs for execution may or may not be counted against the
transaction data size total depending on how they are used on the transaction.
This includes, but is not limited to, LoaderV3 buffer accounts, and accounts
which fail ELF validation.

All validator clients must arrive at precisely the same transaction data size
for all transactions because a difference of one byte can determine whether a
transaction is executed or failed, and thus affects consensus. Also, we want the
calculated transaction data size to correspond well with the actual amount of
data the transaction requests.

Therefore, this SIMD seeks to specify an algorithm that is straightforward to
implement in a client-agnostic way, while also accurately accounting for all
account data required by the transaction.

## New Terminology

No new terms are introduced by this SIMD, however we define these for clarity:

* Instruction account: an account passed to an instruction in its accounts
array, which allows the program to view the actual bytes contained in the
account. CPI can only happen through programs provided as instruction accounts.
* Transaction accounts list: all accounts for the transaction, which includes
instruction accounts, the fee-payer, program IDs, and any extra accounts added
to the list but not explicitly available to programs.
* LoaderV3 program account: an account owned by
`BPFLoaderUpgradeab1e11111111111111111111111` which contains in its account data
the first four bytes `02 00 00 00` followed by a pubkey which points to an
account which is defined as the program's programdata account.

For the purposes of this SIMD, we make no assumptions about the contents of the
programdata account.

## Detailed Design

The proposed algorithm is as follows:

1. The set of accounts that determine loaded transaction data size is defined as
the unique intersection of:
* The set of account keys explicitly specified on the transaction,
irrespective of how they are used.
* The set of programdata accounts referenced by the LoaderV3 program
accounts specified on the transaction.
Comment on lines +74 to +79
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh just realized we should probably also include ALT account sizes as well

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm but ALTs are not read or write locked by the transaction so they could be extended in parallel so we can't use the actual size. Maybe just use the max size of LOOKUP_TABLE_META_SIZE + LOOKUP_TABLE_MAX_ADDRESSES * 32?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is it possible to know whether an ALT was used at all in transaction processing? my understanding is resolution happens too early and all the information is erased. im not sure if there is an easy solution to this or if we should defer adding it to transaction data size after the ALT async execution simd changes how that code works

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's possible, we could simply include that information in static meta and make it available to the account loader. The ALT SIMD changes will most likely only really cover failure cases so I don't think we need to defer this decision.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we're just using the max size of a table, we don't need to store any additional information in static meta. We have the number of ALTs in the message itself.

and I (accidently) have already exposed getting that information in SVMMessage trait, so we should be able to get it in our specific implementation easily.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(based on discussion we are considering a flat 8192 byte cost for ALT usage, pending feedback from @tao-stones)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(based on discussion we are considering a flat 8192 byte cost for ALT usage ...

Should be 8248 byte cost because there is space in the ALT accounts for 56 bytes of metadata as well

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

8248 * 8 / 32000 = 2 CU, that doesn't sound bad at all.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Cool, let's go forward with that in the proposal for now then

2. Each account's size is defined as the byte length of its data prior to
transaction execution plus 64 bytes to account for metadata.
3. There is an additional flat 8248 byte cost for transactions that use an
address lookup table, accounting for the 8192 bytes for the maximum size of such
a table plus 56 bytes for metadata.
4. The total transaction loaded account data size is the sum of these sizes.

Transactions may include a
`ComputeBudgetInstruction::SetLoadedAccountsDataSizeLimit` instruction to define
a lower data size limit for the transaction. Otherwise, the default limit is
64MiB (`64 * 1024 * 1024` bytes).

If a transaction exceeds its data size limit, the transaction is failed. Fees
will be charged once `enable_transaction_loading_failure_fees` is enabled.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where will this be checked? Do transactions that fail this check make it into blocks? Do you mind clarifying this in the SIMD? 🙏

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok i updated the wording to:

If a transaction exceeds its data size limit, a loading failure occurs. This SIMD does not change any aspect of how such a failure is handled. At time of writing, such a transaction would be excluded from the ledger. When enable_transaction_loading_failure_fees is enabled, it will be written to the ledger and charged fees as a processed, failed transaction.

the idea is we arent changing any of the logic about how loading works here, the existing flow stays the same (loading happens at the same time in the same place of transaction processing, what kind of error you get if you exceed the limit, how that error is handled and how its reflected in ledger history, etc)

the only thing that changes is what the number of bytes you arrive at will be and how you determine what that number is


Adding required loaders to transaction data size is abolished. They are treated
the same as any other account: counted if used in a manner described by 1, not
counted otherwise.

Read-only and writable accounts are treated the same. In the future, when direct
mapping is enabled, this SIMD may be amended to count them differently.

We include programdata size for LoaderV3 programs because using the program
account on a transaction forces an unconditional load of programdata to compile
the program for execution. We always count it, even when the program account is
not a transaction program ID, because the program must be available for CPI.

There is no special handling for any account owned by the native loader,
LoaderV1, or LoaderV2.

Account size for programs owned by LoaderV4 is left undefined. This SIMD should
be amended to define the required semantics before LoaderV4 is enabled on any
network.

## Alternatives Considered

* Transaction data size accounting is already enabled, so the null option is to
enshrine the current Agave behavior in the protocol. This is undesirable because
the current behavior is highly idiosyncratic, and LoaderV3 program sizes are
routinely undercounted.
* Builtin programs are backed by accounts that only contain the program name as
a string, typically making them 15-40 bytes. We could impose a larger fixed cost
for these. However, they must be made available for all programs anyway, and
most of them are likely to be ported to BPF eventually, so this adds complexity
for no real benefit.
* Several slightly different algorithms were considered for handling LoaderV3
programs in particular, for instance only counting programs that are valid for
execution in the current slot. However, this would implicitly couple transaction
data size with the results of ELF validation, which is highly undesirable.
* We considered skipping loading of accounts included in the transaction
accounts list but not used as an instruction account, program ID, or fee-payer.
However, [SIMD-0163](
https://github.com/solana-foundation/solana-improvement-documents/pull/163)
intends to leverage these accounts to make CPI more CU-efficient.

## Impact

The primary impact is this SIMD makes correctly implementing transaction data
size accounting much easier for other validator clients.

It makes the calculated size of transactions which include program accounts for
CPI somewhat larger, but given the generous 64MiB limit, it is unlikely that any
existing users will be affected. Based on an investigation of a 30-day window,
transactions larger than 30MiB are virtually never seen.

## Security Considerations

Security impact is minimal because this SIMD merely simplifies an existing
feature. Care must be taken to implement the rules exactly.

This SIMD requires a feature gate.

## Backwards Compatibility

Transactions that currently have a total transaction data size close to the
64MiB limit, which call LoaderV3 programs via CPI, may now exceed it and fail.
Loading