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

feat: include L1 message with insufficient balance #462

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Thegaram
Copy link

@Thegaram Thegaram commented Aug 11, 2023

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:

  • build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies (example scopes: yarn, eslint, typescript)
  • ci: Changes to our CI configuration files and scripts (example scopes: vercel, github, cypress)
  • docs: Documentation-only changes
  • feat: A new feature
  • fix: A bug fix
  • perf: A code change that improves performance
  • refactor: A code change that doesn't fix a bug, or add a feature, or improves performance
  • style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code (white-space, formatting, missing semi-colons, etc)
  • test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests

3. Deployment tag versioning

Has the version in params/version.go been updated?

  • This PR doesn't involve a new deployment, git tag, docker image tag, and it doesn't affect traces
  • Yes

4. Breaking change label

Does this PR have the breaking-change label?

  • This PR is not a breaking change
  • Yes

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • Enhanced L1 message transaction handling to allow bypassing insufficient funds checks.
    • Added new test case for L1 message transactions with insufficient balance.
  • Tests

    • Improved test framework for L1 message transactions.
    • Updated test function signatures to provide more comprehensive blockchain context.
  • Bug Fixes

    • Modified error handling logic for fund transfers in L1 message transactions.

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2025

Walkthrough

The 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

File Change Summary
core/state_transition.go Modified transfer condition to skip insufficient funds error for L1 message transactions by adding !msg.IsL1MessageTx() check
miner/scroll_worker_test.go - Updated l1MessageTest function signature to include blockchain context
- Added new test TestL1MessageWithInsufficientBalanceNotSkipped
- Updated test comments and assertions

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    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
Loading

Poem

🐰 A Rabbit's Ode to L1 Messages
In Scroll's blockchain, a message flies free,
No balance check to stop its spree!
L1 transactions dance with grace,
Bypassing limits without a trace 🚀
A clever hop through funding's gate! 💸


📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between b8d60b2 and cd5d222.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • core/state_transition.go (1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
  • core/state_transition.go
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
  • GitHub Check: test

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@Thegaram
Copy link
Author

@coderabbitai review

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 20, 2025

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

Copy link

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a 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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ac8164f and b8d60b2.

📒 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:

  1. Document this special behavior in comments
  2. 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:

  1. L1 messages with insufficient balance are included
  2. Transaction status is correctly set (failed/successful)
  3. Queue index is properly updated

@Thegaram Thegaram marked this pull request as ready for review January 20, 2025 14:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant