fix: const sub expr underflow validation #3197
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
thehowl
reviewed
Nov 27, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we use github.com/gnolang/overflow, which we already use elsewhere, instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think there is a better way. I'm working on an alternative approach, which is to handle overflows directly at gnovm level.
It is important for a smart contract runtime to always handle overflows. Gno would be superior to the standard Go runtime which, like C and most other languages, doesn't address this (to preserve the best possible native performances), and rely on external user code.
As we are interpreted, and got full control of the runtime and opcodes, we are perfectly placed to implement it the right way. It would provide strong guarantees on all numeric ops and would simplify the user code (no extra lib needed). We have to handle overflows internally anyway for constant validation, so this kind of code is already necessary in gnovm.
I did some preliminary benchmarks on an overflow aware OpAdd and such. (with specific optimisations to avoid bigints most of time, even for int64) and the overhead is negligible. And I expect it to be same also on a pure bytecode VM.
I will submit the proposal + PR + benchmarks tomorrow or the next day.
6 tasks
|
Closed in favor of @mvertes proposal |
mvertes
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2025
I propose that we implement overflow checking directly in gnovm opcodes,
and that gnovm always enforces overflow checking. Overflow checking
becomes a capacity of the Gno language and the Gno virtual machine.
It's important for a smart contract platform to offer by default, and
without user or developer effort, the strongest guarantees on numerical
operations.
In that topic, Gno would be superior to the standard Go runtime which,
like C and most other languages, don't address this internally beside
constants (to preserve the best possible native performances), and rely
on external user code.
It would also simplify the user code and avoid to use specific
libraries.
For example, in `gnovm/stdlibs/std/coins.go`, for the `Coin.Add` method:
Before:
```go
import "math/overflow"
func (c Coin) Add(other Coin) Coin {
mustMatchDenominations(c.Denom, other.Denom)
sum, ok := overflow.Add64(c.Amount, other.Amount)
if !ok {
panic("coin add overflow/underflow: " +
strconv.Itoa(int(c.Amount)) + " +/- " +
strconv.Itoa(int(other.Amount)))
}
c.Amount = sum
return c
}
```
After:
```go
func (c Coin) Add(other Coin) Coin {
mustMatchDenominations(c.Denom, other.Denom)
c.Amount += other.Amount
return c
}
```
with the same behaviour for overflow checking. Note also that the new
version, is not only simpler, but also faster, because overflow checking
is performed natively, and not interpreted.
Integer overflow handling is only implemented for signed integers.
Unsigned integers, on purpose, just wrap around when reaching their
maximum or minimum values. This is intended to support all crypto, hash
and bitwise operations which may rely on that wrap around property.
Division by zero is still handled both in signed and unsigned integers.
Note: from now, on security level, the use of unsigned integers for
standard numeric operations should be probably considered suspicious.
## Benchmark
To measure the impact of overflow, I execute the following benchmarks:
First a micro benchmark comparing an addition of 2 ints, with and
without overflow:
```go
//go:noinline
func AddNoOverflow(x, y int) int { return x + y }
func BenchmarkAddNoOverflow(b *testing.B) {
x, y := 4, 3
c := 0
for range b.N {
c = AddNoOverflow(x, y)
}
if c != 7 {
b.Error("invalid result")
}
}
func BenchmarkAddOverflow(b *testing.B) {
x, y := 4, 3
c := 0
for range b.N {
c = overflow.Addp(x, y)
}
if c != 7 {
b.Error("invalid result")
}
}
```
The implementation of overflow checking is taken from
http://github.com/gnolang/overflow, already used in tm2.
It gives the following results:
```console
$ go test -v- run=^# -benchmem -bench=Overflow
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang
cpu: Apple M1
BenchmarkAddNoOverflow
BenchmarkAddNoOverflow-8 1000000000 0.9392 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkAddOverflow
BenchmarkAddOverflow-8 568881582 2.101 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
PASS
ok github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang 2.640s
```
Checking overflow doubles the execution time of an addition from 1 ns/op
to 2 ns/op.
But at 2 ns, the total time is still an order of magnitude lower than
the cost of running the VM.
The impact of overflow check doesn't even appear when benchmarking at VM
level with the following:
```go
func BenchmarkOpAdd(b *testing.B) {
m := NewMachine("bench", nil)
x := TypedValue{T: IntType}
x.SetInt(4)
y := TypedValue{T: IntType}
y.SetInt(3)
b.ResetTimer()
for range b.N {
m.PushOp(OpHalt)
m.PushExpr(&BinaryExpr{})
m.PushValue(x)
m.PushValue(y)
m.PushOp(OpAdd)
m.Run()
}
}
```
Which gives something like:
```console
$ go test -v -benchmem -bench=OpAdd -run=^#
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang
cpu: Apple M1
BenchmarkOpAdd
BenchmarkOpAdd-8 16069832 74.41 ns/op 163 B/op 1 allocs/op
PASS
ok github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang 1.526
```
Where the execution time varie from 60 ns/op to 100 ns/op for both
versions of addition, with or without overflow.
## Related PRs and issues
- PRs:
- #3197
- #3192
- #3117
- #2983
- #2905
- #2698
- Issues:
- #2873
- #1844
- #1729
<!-- please provide a detailed description of the changes made in this
pull request. -->
<details><summary>Contributors' checklist...</summary>
- [ ] Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
- [ ] Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is
self-explanatory
- [ ] Updated the official documentation or not needed
- [ ] No breaking changes were made, or a `BREAKING CHANGE: xxx` message
was included in the description
- [ ] Added references to related issues and PRs
- [ ] Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
</details>
albttx
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2025
I propose that we implement overflow checking directly in gnovm opcodes,
and that gnovm always enforces overflow checking. Overflow checking
becomes a capacity of the Gno language and the Gno virtual machine.
It's important for a smart contract platform to offer by default, and
without user or developer effort, the strongest guarantees on numerical
operations.
In that topic, Gno would be superior to the standard Go runtime which,
like C and most other languages, don't address this internally beside
constants (to preserve the best possible native performances), and rely
on external user code.
It would also simplify the user code and avoid to use specific
libraries.
For example, in `gnovm/stdlibs/std/coins.go`, for the `Coin.Add` method:
Before:
```go
import "math/overflow"
func (c Coin) Add(other Coin) Coin {
mustMatchDenominations(c.Denom, other.Denom)
sum, ok := overflow.Add64(c.Amount, other.Amount)
if !ok {
panic("coin add overflow/underflow: " +
strconv.Itoa(int(c.Amount)) + " +/- " +
strconv.Itoa(int(other.Amount)))
}
c.Amount = sum
return c
}
```
After:
```go
func (c Coin) Add(other Coin) Coin {
mustMatchDenominations(c.Denom, other.Denom)
c.Amount += other.Amount
return c
}
```
with the same behaviour for overflow checking. Note also that the new
version, is not only simpler, but also faster, because overflow checking
is performed natively, and not interpreted.
Integer overflow handling is only implemented for signed integers.
Unsigned integers, on purpose, just wrap around when reaching their
maximum or minimum values. This is intended to support all crypto, hash
and bitwise operations which may rely on that wrap around property.
Division by zero is still handled both in signed and unsigned integers.
Note: from now, on security level, the use of unsigned integers for
standard numeric operations should be probably considered suspicious.
## Benchmark
To measure the impact of overflow, I execute the following benchmarks:
First a micro benchmark comparing an addition of 2 ints, with and
without overflow:
```go
//go:noinline
func AddNoOverflow(x, y int) int { return x + y }
func BenchmarkAddNoOverflow(b *testing.B) {
x, y := 4, 3
c := 0
for range b.N {
c = AddNoOverflow(x, y)
}
if c != 7 {
b.Error("invalid result")
}
}
func BenchmarkAddOverflow(b *testing.B) {
x, y := 4, 3
c := 0
for range b.N {
c = overflow.Addp(x, y)
}
if c != 7 {
b.Error("invalid result")
}
}
```
The implementation of overflow checking is taken from
http://github.com/gnolang/overflow, already used in tm2.
It gives the following results:
```console
$ go test -v- run=^# -benchmem -bench=Overflow
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang
cpu: Apple M1
BenchmarkAddNoOverflow
BenchmarkAddNoOverflow-8 1000000000 0.9392 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
BenchmarkAddOverflow
BenchmarkAddOverflow-8 568881582 2.101 ns/op 0 B/op 0 allocs/op
PASS
ok github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang 2.640s
```
Checking overflow doubles the execution time of an addition from 1 ns/op
to 2 ns/op.
But at 2 ns, the total time is still an order of magnitude lower than
the cost of running the VM.
The impact of overflow check doesn't even appear when benchmarking at VM
level with the following:
```go
func BenchmarkOpAdd(b *testing.B) {
m := NewMachine("bench", nil)
x := TypedValue{T: IntType}
x.SetInt(4)
y := TypedValue{T: IntType}
y.SetInt(3)
b.ResetTimer()
for range b.N {
m.PushOp(OpHalt)
m.PushExpr(&BinaryExpr{})
m.PushValue(x)
m.PushValue(y)
m.PushOp(OpAdd)
m.Run()
}
}
```
Which gives something like:
```console
$ go test -v -benchmem -bench=OpAdd -run=^#
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang
cpu: Apple M1
BenchmarkOpAdd
BenchmarkOpAdd-8 16069832 74.41 ns/op 163 B/op 1 allocs/op
PASS
ok github.com/gnolang/gno/gnovm/pkg/gnolang 1.526
```
Where the execution time varie from 60 ns/op to 100 ns/op for both
versions of addition, with or without overflow.
## Related PRs and issues
- PRs:
- #3197
- #3192
- #3117
- #2983
- #2905
- #2698
- Issues:
- #2873
- #1844
- #1729
<!-- please provide a detailed description of the changes made in this
pull request. -->
<details><summary>Contributors' checklist...</summary>
- [ ] Added new tests, or not needed, or not feasible
- [ ] Provided an example (e.g. screenshot) to aid review or the PR is
self-explanatory
- [ ] Updated the official documentation or not needed
- [ ] No breaking changes were made, or a `BREAKING CHANGE: xxx` message
was included in the description
- [ ] Added references to related issues and PRs
- [ ] Provided any useful hints for running manual tests
</details>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes this