EOF Implementers Call #58

[poojaranjan]

Meeting Info

Sep 18th, 2024 , 15:00 UTC

Duration: 60 minutes

Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88940506383?pwd=aTdsbHVyMTNDSUFHYmhTWlI2ZEVldz09

📅 Subscribe to the Ethereum Protocol Call calendar for calendar invites

Resources

• Current specs
  • EIP-7692: EVM Object Format (EOFv1) Meta
  • EIPs Included
    EIP-3540: EOF - EVM Object Format v1 EIP-3670: EOF - Code Validation EIP-4200: EOF - Static relative jumps EIP-4750: EOF - Functions EIP-5450: EOF - Stack Validation EIP-6206: EOF - JUMPF and non-returning functions EIP-7480: EOF - Data section access instructions EIP-663: SWAPN, DUPN and EXCHANGE instructions EIP-7069: Revamped CALL instructions EIP-7620: EOF Contract Creation EIP-7698: EOF - Creation transaction
• EOF Meeting Playlist
• EVM (EOF) Taxonomy
• EOF explainers on PEEPanEIP
  EVM Object Format (EOF) with Danno Ferrin EVM Object Format (EIP-3540 & EIP-3670) with Andrei Maiboroda, Axic & Pawel
• EOF Testing Coverage Tracker
• Solidity + EOF POC summary
• Matrix on evmobjectformat.org
• Prev meeting notes

Agenda

• Client updates
• Compiler updates
• Spec updates
• Testing updates
• Other items
  • Discuss EIP-7765 Ref:here

Please add other agenda items or links to discuss.

Next call on Oct 2nd, 2024

[shemnon]

• Devnet readiness
  • split pectra - let's have that discussion after all other business maybe?
• Tracing Support https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7756
• HASCODE / ISCONTRACT https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7761
• EXT*CALL returncodes - what's the logic between 1/2? revert/abort

[shemnon]

• Client Discussion

• Discussed Split

  • pt 2 should follow w/in 3-6 months
  • mild preference for one merge, but not enough to block
  • concern about scope creep and moving actual shipment to 1 year

• Compiler Updates

  • None

• Specs

  • Tracing
  • evmone will look into implementing, but may have changes to proposle
  • HASCODE/ISCONTRACT
  • Discussed AA concern in discord
    • AA is concerned about the pattern where non-eoa accounts are barred, HASCODE could be used to perpetuate that and slow AA adoption
    • Also, 721 could be solved better with ERC-165 interface
    • counter: AA is slowed by lack of smart contract signatures
    • counter: Banning EOAs possible w/o HASCODE
    • No conclusion yet
  • Could pectra split allow it to be added in V1?
    • Some preference to be in a follow-on fork, but preference may have been driven by time to gather data
    • Split is because of EIP bloat, adding a new EIP would counter the solution
    • At least 1 client wants to include it for V1
    • Absence could slow adoption of EOF (Any ERC-721/ERC-1155 or flashloan project for example)
    • There is concern that 721 and 1155 are badly designed, and so this pattern won't re-occur. An update of 721 could provide the same protections and conform to modern practices.
    • AA accounts could implement 165, but then they would have to have the 721 callbacks active.
    • See note below about EXTDELEGATE and proxies
  • EXTCALL return codes
    • intent
    • 1 - gas was not burned as part of the violation
      • User reverts
      • Some failures related to call process
    • 2 - all gas consumed as part of the failure
      • Out of gas
      • RETURNDATA copy oob in legacy
      • static call violation
      • data stack overflow
    • No action today
  • Allow EXTDELEGATECALL to legacy
    • This is another use case for HASCODE, to ensure EOF proxies won't delegate to a legacy contract
    • This could be solved with a "handshake" method or a trial delegate call

• Testing

  • PRs will be reviewed
  • 7702 testing
  • many clients were rejecting incorrectly
  • execute mode in EEST can address this problem - uses JSON-RPC only to interact with node

Bikeshedding

• Can we rename types to stack-io in the spec? types was not terribly clear.
  • stack-io
  • section-info or section-spec
  • code-info
  • signature(s)

Standing agenda should move testing to the first items

[poojaranjan]

Closing in favor of #1162