SIMD-0160: Static Instruction Limit#160
Conversation
apfitzge
changed the title
ptaffet-jump
left a comment
ptaffet-jump
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fantastic, thanks! You always say "more than 64," so I think it should be pretty clear, but it might be worth calling out explicitly that exactly 64 is fine. The inequality is strict.
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives Considered | ||
|
|
||
| Do nothing. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not allow them to be included but limit processing to fee payer validation? So before we load the program cache, we check the instruction count and fail the transaction immediately if it exceeds the limit but still allow fee collection?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I view it similarly to having the number of signatures not match the required signatures field in the header; its' a basic sanitization check that can be checked extremely cheaply.
checking it does not scale with any aspects of the transaction such as number of instructions, number of account lookup tables, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So long as we do it really early then I'm fine with prohibiting such transactions from being included. Can you write up a brief summary of this comment thread in the alternatives section?
|
@Benhawkins18 can we merge this? we have approval from both FD and Anza teams |
5 participants
No description provided.