|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +simd: '0191' |
| 3 | +title: Relax Transaction Constraints - Loading Failures |
| 4 | +authors: |
| 5 | + - Andrew Fitzgerald (Anza) |
| 6 | +category: Standard/Meta |
| 7 | +type: Core/Networking/Interface/Meta |
| 8 | +status: Draft |
| 9 | +created: 2024-11-06 |
| 10 | +feature: PaymEPK2oqwT9TXAVfadjztH2H6KfLEB9Hhd5Q5frvP |
| 11 | +supersedes: |
| 12 | +superseded-by: |
| 13 | +extends: |
| 14 | +--- |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +## Summary |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +This proposal aims to relax certain transaction errors related to loading |
| 19 | +transaction accounts, from protocol violations to runtime errors. |
| 20 | +Specifically, if a transaction fails to load a valid program account or |
| 21 | +exceeds the requested maximum loaded account data size, the transaction |
| 22 | +may be included in a block, and the transaction fee will be charged. |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +## Motivation |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +The current transaction constraints are overly restrictive and adds complexity |
| 27 | +in determining whether a block is valid or not. |
| 28 | +This proposal aims to relax these loading constraints to simplify the protocol, |
| 29 | +and give block-producers more flexibility in determining which transactions |
| 30 | +may be included in a block. |
| 31 | +The goal is to remove this reliance on account-state in order to validate a |
| 32 | +block. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +## New Terminology |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +These terms are used elsewhere, but are defined here for clarity: |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +- Protocol Violating Transaction Error: A transaction error that violates the |
| 39 | + protocol. This class of errors must result in the entire block being rejected |
| 40 | + by the network. |
| 41 | +- Runtime Transaction Error: A transaction error that results in a failed |
| 42 | + transaction, and may be included in the block. These transactions still |
| 43 | + incur transaction fees, and nonce advancements. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +## Detailed Design |
| 46 | + |
| 47 | +Among others, a transaction that fails to load due to violating one of the |
| 48 | +following constraints is considered a protocol violation error: |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +1. The total loaded data size of the transaction must not exceed |
| 51 | + `requested_loaded_accounts_data_size_limit`, or the default limit (64MiB). |
| 52 | +2. Any account used as a program in a top-level instruction must: |
| 53 | + - be the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111` |
| 54 | + - OR |
| 55 | + - exist |
| 56 | + - be executable |
| 57 | + - be owned by the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111` |
| 58 | + - OR |
| 59 | + - exist |
| 60 | + - be executable |
| 61 | + - the owner account be owned by the native loader: `NativeLoader1111111111111111111111111111111` |
| 62 | + - the owner account must be executable |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +This proposal moves these errors from protocol violations to runtime errors. |
| 65 | +A transaction that fails to load due to violating either one of these |
| 66 | +constraints may be included in a block, so long as it is otherwise valid. |
| 67 | +The transaction must pay transaction fees, and if present, the nonce must be |
| 68 | +advanced. |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +## Alternatives Considered |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | +- Do nothing |
| 73 | + - This is the simplest option, as we could leave the protocol as is. |
| 74 | + However, this leaves the protocol more complex than it needs to be. |
| 75 | +- Relax additional constraints: |
| 76 | + - SIMD-0082 sought to relax additional constraints, but has not been |
| 77 | + accepted. This proposal is a subset of SIMD-0082, intended to make the |
| 78 | + review process simpler and faster. Therefore, we have decided to keep |
| 79 | + this proposal focused specifically on certain loading failures. |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +## Impact |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +- Transactions that would previously have been dropped with a protocol |
| 84 | + violation error can now be included and will be charged fees. |
| 85 | + - Users must be more careful when constructing transactions to ensure they |
| 86 | + are executable if they do not want to waste fees. |
| 87 | +- Block-production is simplified as it can be done without needing to load |
| 88 | + large program accounts for the initial decision to include a transaction. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +## Security Considerations |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +None |
| 93 | + |
| 94 | +## Drawbacks |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +- Users must be more careful about what they sign, as they will be charged fees |
| 97 | + for transactions that are included in a block, even if they are not executed. |
| 98 | +- This will likely break a lot of tooling, such as explorers, which may expect |
| 99 | + all transactions to attempt execution. |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +## Backwards Compatibility |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +This proposal is backwards compatible with the current protocol, since it only |
| 104 | +relaxes constraints, and does not add any new constraints. All previously valid |
| 105 | +blocks would still be valid. However, new blocks may not be valid under the old |
| 106 | +protocol. |
0 commit comments