-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 279
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
feat: include L1 message with insufficient balance #462
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces modifications to the state transition logic for L1 message transactions in the Scroll blockchain implementation. The changes focus on adjusting the error handling mechanism for fund transfers, specifically allowing L1 message transactions to bypass the insufficient funds check. Additionally, the test suite for the miner's scroll worker has been updated to include a new test case that verifies the behavior of L1 messages with insufficient account balances. Changes
Sequence DiagramsequenceDiagram
participant Tx as L1 Message Transaction
participant ST as State Transition
participant EVM as EVM Context
participant State as Blockchain State
Tx->>ST: Initiate Transfer
ST->>EVM: Check Transfer Capability
alt Is L1 Message
ST->>State: Proceed with Transfer
else Insufficient Funds
ST->>Tx: Reject Transfer
end
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
@coderabbitai review |
✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
miner/scroll_worker_test.go (1)
712-714
: Improve comment accuracy about gas limit checks.The comment suggests this scenario "cannot happen in practice", but it would be more helpful to explain why it's prevented by contract validation.
- // message #0 is skipped because of `GasLimit` - // (cannot happen in practice, this is checked in the contracts) + // message #0 is skipped because of `GasLimit` + // Note: In production, the L1 contracts prevent messages with gas > block gas limit
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
core/state_transition.go
(1 hunks)miner/scroll_worker_test.go
(10 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (3)
core/state_transition.go (1)
377-377
: Document and verify the security implications of bypassing balance checks for L1 messages.The change allows L1 message transactions to proceed even with insufficient balance. While this aligns with the PR objective, it's important to:
- Document this special behavior in comments
- Verify that upstream L1 validation ensures this cannot be exploited
✅ Verification successful
Verified: L1 message balance check bypass is secure but needs documentation
The security implications of bypassing balance checks for L1 messages are acceptable because:
- Messages are pre-validated on L1
- Strict ordering is enforced (L1 messages before L2, sequential queue index)
- Contract creation is prevented
- Sender verification is handled on L1
Please add a comment explaining why balance checks are bypassed for L1 messages to maintain code clarity.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any security checks or validations for L1 messages in the codebase rg -A 5 "IsL1MessageTx|L1MessageTx" | rg "security|valid|check" # Look for documentation about L1 message security model fd -g "*.md" --exec rg -l "L1.*security|L1.*validation"Length of output: 1648
Script:
#!/bin/bash # Check L1 message structure and fee handling ast-grep --pattern 'type L1MessageTx struct { $$$ }' # Check L1 message processing and fee handling rg -A 5 "L1MessageTx.*fee|fee.*L1MessageTx" # Look for any L1 message validation in consensus fd -g "*consensus*.go" --exec rg -l "L1.*message|message.*L1"Length of output: 658
miner/scroll_worker_test.go (2)
Line range hint
518-561
: LGTM! Function signature update improves test capabilities.The addition of the blockchain parameter allows tests to verify transaction receipts, which is essential for validating the new L1 message behavior.
747-786
: Well-structured test for the new L1 message behavior.The test comprehensively verifies:
- L1 messages with insufficient balance are included
- Transaction status is correctly set (failed/successful)
- Queue index is properly updated
1. Purpose or design rationale of this PR
...
2. PR title
Your PR title must follow conventional commits (as we are doing squash merge for each PR), so it must start with one of the following types:
3. Deployment tag versioning
Has the version in
params/version.go
been updated?4. Breaking change label
Does this PR have the
breaking-change
label?Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests
Bug Fixes