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

Update EIP-7702: Do not allow authorization nonce equal to 2**64 - 1 #8905

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

gumb0
Copy link
Member

@gumb0 gumb0 commented Sep 25, 2024

It is important to not allow authorization.nonce == 2**64 - 1, because in this case incrementing authority nonce will result in nonce overflowing 64 bit, which is not allowed since EIP-2681

Alternative to adding this to the transaction validity rules could be additional check during delegation setting, but it is simpler this way (fewer checks) and more aligned with existing transaction types validity. It is checked at authorization list processing now.

@gumb0 gumb0 requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner September 25, 2024 10:15
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-review This EIP is in Review t-core labels Sep 25, 2024
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Sep 25, 2024

File EIPS/eip-7702.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @adietrichs, @lightclient, @SamWilsn, @vbuterin

@lightclient
Copy link
Member

but it is simpler this way (fewer checks) and more aligned with existing transaction types validity.

Is this true? I feel like add bounds outside of basic type widths might add more complexity since it isn't natively part of decoding (e.g. value too big for type!).

@gumb0
Copy link
Member Author

gumb0 commented Sep 26, 2024

but it is simpler this way (fewer checks) and more aligned with existing transaction types validity.

Is this true? I feel like add bounds outside of basic type widths might add more complexity since it isn't natively part of decoding (e.g. value too big for type!).

I guess you're right, it's probably the same number of checks, so either extra check at transaction validity, or one at processing authorizations. I don't mind it either way.

@gumb0
Copy link
Member Author

gumb0 commented Sep 26, 2024

I changed it now to be checked at authorization list processing.

EIPS/eip-7702.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lightclient
Copy link
Member

LGTM. Needs a rebase - I just did in in #8938. Closing

@lightclient lightclient closed this Oct 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
a-review Waiting on author to review c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-review This EIP is in Review t-core
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants