EIP-4200 Tests by hugo-dc · Pull Request #1103 · ethereum/tests

hugo-dc · 2022-11-21T15:11:00Z

Based on Tests vectors: #1093

Tests

Valid

EOF code containing RJUMP (Positive, Negative, Zero)
EOF code containing RJUMPI (Positive, Negative, Zero)
EOF with RJUMPV table size 1 (Positive, Negative, Zero)
EOF with RJUMPV table size 3
EOF with RJUMPV table size 255 (Target 0, 100, 254, 256)
Code with branches having the same stack height
Jump table
Infinite loop
Infinite loop using RJUMPV
CALLF branches with the same total of outputs
CALLF inputs
Validate input for all opcode requiring at least 1 stack items
Containing terminating opcode at the end (RETURN, REVERT)
Loop ending with unconditional RJUMP
Functions ending with RETF
Stack is not required to be empty on terminating instruction (RETURN, REVERT)
RETF returning maximum number of outputs (127)

Invalid

EOF code containing truncated RJUMP
EOF code containing RJUMP with target outside code bounds
EOF code containing RJUMP with target immediate
EOF code containing truncated RJUMPI
EOF code containing RJUMPI with target outside code bounds
EOF code containing RJUMPI with target immediate
EOF code containing RJUMPV with count 0 and zero immediates
EOF code containing RJUMPV with count 0 and one immediates
EOF code containing truncated RJUMPV
EOF code containing RJUMPV with target outside code bounds
EOF code containing RJUMPV with target immediate

Execution

Test RJUMP/RJUMPI/RJUMPV execution.

EOF1_RJUMP_RJUMPI_Execution
RJUMP_MaxOffset
RJUMPI_MaxOffset

winsvega · 2022-11-22T12:39:35Z

whats new?

gumb0 · 2022-12-21T17:55:16Z

Rebased and moved fillers to stEOF/stEIP4200, but haven't refilled yet (implementation not ready)

gumb0 · 2022-12-21T19:17:19Z

+      # Initcode: [Data: contract_code, Code: PUSH1(contract_size) PUSH1(data_offset) PUSH1(0) CODECOPY PUSH1(contract_size) PUSH1(0) RETURN]
+      - ':label eof1_initcode_deploy_eof1_rjump_jumpdest_pos :raw 0xef000101000c020014006014601660003960146000f3ef000101000d005c000300f3005b600160015500'
+      # - Negative:
+      # Deployed code: RJUMP(8) STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST RJUMP(-11) STOP - ef0001010010005c0008005b6001600155005b5cFFF500


To avoid unreachable code this could be
RJUMP(7) JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST RJUMP(-11)

gumb0 · 2022-12-21T19:17:34Z

+    data:
+      # Valid EOF deployed code with RJUMP having JUMPDEST as target
+      # - Positive:
+      # Deployed code: RJUMP(3) STOP RETURN STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000d005c000300f3005b600160015500


To avoid unreachable code this could be something like
RJUMP(3) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) RJUMP(-10)

Maybe I would just delete all the tests with JUMPDEST, it is now NOP instruction, not better than any other instruction...

Also I want to remove combinations that test whether it's validated in deployed code.

I think it's enough to try only initcode, doesn't seem worth it to check all tiny details of validation in both.

gumb0 · 2022-12-21T19:26:43Z

+
+      # Valid EOF deployed code with RJUMPI having JUMPDEST as target
+      # - Positive:
+      # Deployed code: PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(3) STOP RETURN STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000f0060015d000300f3005b600160015500


To avoid unreachable code

Suggested change

# Deployed code: PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(3) STOP RETURN STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000f0060015d000300f3005b600160015500

# Deployed code: PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(3) NOP NOP STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000f0060015d00035B5B005b600160015500

gumb0 · 2022-12-21T19:30:33Z

+      # Initcode: [Data: contract_code, Code: PUSH1(contract_size) PUSH1(data_offset) PUSH1(0) CODECOPY PUSH1(contract_size) PUSH1(0) RETURN]
+      - ':label eof1_initcode_deploy_eof1_rjumpi_jumpdest_pos :raw 0xef000101000c020016006016601660003960166000f3ef000101000f0060015d000300f3005b600160015500'
+      # - Negative:
+      # Deployed code: RJUMP(8) STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(-13) STOP - ef0001010012005c0008005b6001600155005b60015dFFF300


Suggested change

# Deployed code: RJUMP(8) STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(-13) STOP - ef0001010012005c0008005b6001600155005b60015dFFF300

# Deployed code: RJUMP(7) JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(-13) STOP - ef0001010011005c00075b6001600155005b60015dFFF300

gumb0 · 2022-12-28T16:54:48Z

For some tests with EOF code in pre-state I used :yul-eof compiler which requires Solidity built from argotorg/solidity#13825 and yul-eof.sh file in retesteth config with the contents like:

#!/bin/sh
solc=$(which solc)
if [ -z $solc ]; then
   >&2 echo "yul.sh \"Yul compilation error: 'solc' not found!\""
   echo "0x"
else
    echo 0x`/home/andrei/dev/solidity/build/solc/solc --strict-assembly --evm-version shanghai --experimental-eof-version 1 --optimize --yul-optimizations ":" --bin $1 2>/dev/null | grep "Binary representation:" -A 1 | tail -n1`
fi

Also addition in main config file:

    "customCompilers" : {
        ":yul" : "yul.sh",
        ":yul-eof" : "yul-eof.sh",
...

MariusVanDerWijden · 2022-12-30T14:00:03Z

+
+      # Valid EOF initcode with RJUMPV table size 255
+      # Initcode (data): ef000101000402000100010300000000000000fe (code to be deployed)
+      # Initcode: PUSH1(0) RJUMPV(3, 0, -10) NOP NOP STOP PUSH1(20) PUSH1(44) PUSH1(0) CODECOPY PUSH1(20) PUSH1(0) RETURN


This looks to me like a copy paste error

yes, thanks

hugo-dc · 2023-04-18T20:57:01Z

I updated the tests to use new validation format, all validation tests are now in this file. This is a better format for EOF code validation since it allows to specify the expected error.

gumb0 · 2023-04-19T17:05:20Z

+       :label EOF1I4200_0001 :raw 0xef0001010004020001000103000000000000005c
+      expectException:
+        "Shanghai" : "EOF_InvalidCode"
+        ">=Cancun" : "EOF_TruncatedImmediate"


Why is there difference between forks?

All RJUMP-related changes supposedly target the single fork.

Ah it's activated in Cancun, and the error for Shanghai means deploying code starting with 0xEF byte is rejected

hugo-dc force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch from ba4553d to 6de19bf Compare December 4, 2022 19:29

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch 2 times, most recently from 48a25a6 to 0831735 Compare December 21, 2022 17:54

gumb0 reviewed Dec 21, 2022

View reviewed changes

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch 2 times, most recently from a67b32c to 811bfa4 Compare December 28, 2022 16:44

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch 4 times, most recently from eb7db8b to 2d77f2c Compare December 29, 2022 15:57

MariusVanDerWijden reviewed Dec 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch 5 times, most recently from f88667e to 771bbb0 Compare January 2, 2023 14:43

gumb0 mentioned this pull request Jan 2, 2023

EIP-3540: Unified Spec Tests #1127

Merged

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch from 771bbb0 to cd392fd Compare January 6, 2023 15:05

gumb0 force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch 6 times, most recently from 74e0a66 to 1ac5aa2 Compare January 16, 2023 17:58

gumb0 reviewed Apr 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/EIPTestsFiller/StateTests/stEOF/stEIP4200/CREATE_EOF1Invalid_FromEOFFiller.yml Outdated

gumb0 reviewed Apr 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/EIPTestsFiller/StateTests/stEOF/stEIP4200/CREATE_EOF1InvalidFiller.yml Outdated

gumb0 reviewed Apr 17, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/EIPTestsFiller/StateTests/stEOF/stEIP4200/CREATE2_EOF1InvalidFiller.yml Outdated

gumb0 reviewed Apr 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/EIPTestsFiller/StateTests/stEOF/stEIP4200/CreateTransactionInvalidEOF1Filler.yml Outdated

hugo-dc force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch from d02c59d to 7980f7e Compare April 18, 2023 20:52

gumb0 reviewed Apr 19, 2023

View reviewed changes

hugo-dc and others added 20 commits April 20, 2023 08:53

Add RJUMP/RJUMPI tests

c7a85a2

Update valid RJUMP/RJUMPI validation tests

5a553cd

Update RJUMP/RJUMPI execution tests

aa4ce4c

Add RJUMPV validation cases

b715ca4

Add RJUMPV execution cases

99ffed6

Update invalid RJUMP/RJUMPI validation tests

ab1bcc6

Add test for RJUMPI with max offset

523c0b3

Add test for RJUMP with max offset

0fa8bf9

Add tests jumping into RJUMPV/CALLF immediates, add RJUMPV tests

9d96e73

Update to cancun

e3affe0

Move to correct directory

7cc49d6

Change Cancun to >=Cancun, remove unneeded labels

2b01216

Don't check Shanghai when there is already EOF code in state

c3a3369

Fix RJUMPV comments, add test with RJUMPV at the end without immediates

ab10cf5

Remove BlockchainTests

33bcca5

Remove not needed filled tests

2ad4844

Fix wrong comments and code

d1fd23b

Delete previous tests

ba8707e

Add validation tests

b52f54a

Update README

a4b8913

hugo-dc force-pushed the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch from 7980f7e to a4b8913 Compare April 20, 2023 15:55

winsvega merged commit b6ceed7 into ethereum:develop Apr 22, 2023

axic deleted the eip-3540-3670-4200 branch May 6, 2023 00:22

	# Deployed code: PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(3) STOP RETURN STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000f0060015d000300f3005b600160015500
	# Deployed code: PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(3) NOP NOP STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP - ef000101000f0060015d00035B5B005b600160015500

	# Deployed code: RJUMP(8) STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(-13) STOP - ef0001010012005c0008005b6001600155005b60015dFFF300
	# Deployed code: RJUMP(7) JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) PUSH1(1) SSTORE STOP JUMPDEST PUSH1(1) RJUMPI(-13) STOP - ef0001010011005c00075b6001600155005b60015dFFF300

Conversation

hugo-dc commented Nov 21, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Tests

Valid

Invalid

Execution

Uh oh!

winsvega commented Nov 22, 2022

Uh oh!

gumb0 commented Dec 21, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gumb0 Dec 23, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gumb0 commented Dec 28, 2022

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hugo-dc commented Apr 18, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

hugo-dc commented Nov 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gumb0 commented Dec 21, 2022 •

edited

Loading

gumb0 Dec 23, 2022 •

edited

Loading