-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 296
SIMD-0339: Increase CPI Account Info Limit #339
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| simd: '0339' | ||
| title: Increase CPI Account Infos Limit | ||
| authors: | ||
| - Justin Starry (Anza) | ||
| category: Standard | ||
| type: Core | ||
| status: Review | ||
| created: 2025-08-15 | ||
| feature: (fill in with feature key and github tracking issues once accepted) | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| Increase the maximum number of account info's for cross-program invoked (CPI) | ||
| instructions from 64 to 255 and consume compute units for serialized account | ||
| info's and instruction account meta's. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| CPI's are restricted to a limit of 64 account info's passed to the syscall. | ||
| This limit is burdensome for onchain programs which themselves were invoked with | ||
| more than 64 accounts because it means they cannot simply pass through the same | ||
| list of account info's that they were invoked with to another CPI syscall. They | ||
| are faced with the burden of first deduplicating the account info's and | ||
| constructing a new list before making the syscall. | ||
|
|
||
| This problem arises when onchain programs wrap another program (such as Jupiter) | ||
| that composes many other programs and are invoked with over 64 accounts | ||
| (including duplicates). | ||
|
|
||
| Along with the increasing the account info limit, start charging for both | ||
| serialized account info's and instruction account meta's to avoid abuse of | ||
| resources in CPI calls. | ||
|
|
||
| ## New Terminology | ||
|
|
||
| - **Account Info:** The serialized information for each account referenced in a | ||
| CPI instruction used to read account info from the caller program. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Detailed Design | ||
|
|
||
| ### Maximum Account Info Length | ||
|
|
||
| Increase the maximum account info length imposed on CPI syscalls from **64** to | ||
| **255**. The maximum is inclusive, meaning that a list of account info's with a | ||
| length of 255 is valid. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Account Info Cost | ||
|
|
||
| Consume **1 compute unit (CU)** for every `cpi_bytes_per_unit` (currently 250) | ||
| bytes of account info. | ||
|
|
||
| Fixed size of **80 bytes** for each `account_info` broken down as | ||
|
|
||
| - 32 bytes for account address | ||
| - 32 bytes for owner address | ||
| - 8 bytes for lamport balance | ||
| - 8 bytes for data length | ||
|
|
||
| The total cost of account info's can be computed with | ||
| `(account_info_size * account_infos_len) / cpi_bytes_per_unit` rounded down to | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Just to confirm whether the cost is for each unique
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. My intention was to charge a cost for each account info in the |
||
| the nearest CU. | ||
|
|
||
| Note that the SVM can skip duplicate or unused account info's but for simpler CU | ||
| accounting, each account info has the same effect on cost regardless of whether | ||
| it's actually used by the invoked instruction. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Instruction Account Metadata Cost | ||
|
|
||
| Consume **1 compute unit (CU)** for every `cpi_bytes_per_unit` (currently 250) | ||
| bytes of instruction account metadata. | ||
|
|
||
| Fixed size of **34 bytes** for each `ix_account_metadata` broken down as | ||
|
|
||
| - 32 bytes for account address | ||
| - 1 byte for signer flag | ||
| - 1 byte for writable flag | ||
|
|
||
| The total cost of instruction account metadata can be computed with | ||
| `(ix_account_metadata_size * ix.accounts.len()) / cpi_bytes_per_unit` rounded | ||
| down to the nearest CU. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Reduce base CPI cost | ||
|
|
||
| The base cost of CPI syscalls is currently set to 1000 compute units. In order | ||
| to avoid charging more CU's for existing onchain program behavior after the | ||
| activation of this feature, the base cost of CPI syscalls will decreased by 54 | ||
| compute units to 946 compute units to offset the new costs. | ||
|
|
||
| Before this SIMD, up to 255 instruction account metadata's could be passed to a | ||
| CPI syscall. The base cost offset is therefore `255 * 34 / 250 = 34` CU's. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It currently does not make sense to pass in that many, so it probably does not happen. Realistically this should maybe assume 64 as well?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It is already over 64 in the wild (see here: https://explorer.solana.com/tx/69BYATGo3SrSPBKbF5PBs36DvJUssxrFBJtXhfRkmDBrLvLapGevr3NzpKPcBTPr52tYHCkdRNbCyXpuWjMrb4n). I think it's safer to assume 255 since it's only 34 CU's |
||
|
|
||
| Before this SIMD, up to 64 account info's could be passed to a CPI syscall. | ||
| The base cost offset is therefore `64 * 80 / 250 = 20` CU's. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Alternatives Considered | ||
|
|
||
| What alternative designs were considered and what pros/cons does this feature | ||
| have relative to them? | ||
|
|
||
| ## Impact | ||
|
|
||
| Since the list of account info's passed to a CPI can now be ~4 times longer, | ||
| there will be more overhead in the SVM to map each instruction account address | ||
| to one of the account info's. | ||
|
|
||
| The number of allowed unique account info's remains unchanged so the maximum | ||
| amount of accounts that need to be translated for a CPI syscall has not | ||
| increased. | ||
|
|
||
| CPI's will consume compute units proportional to the number of account info's | ||
| and instruction accounts. This gives an extra incentive to onchain programs | ||
| to decrease the number of accounts passed to CPI's. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Security Considerations | ||
|
|
||
| NA | ||
|
|
||
| ## Drawbacks *(Optional)* | ||
|
|
||
| Why should we not do this? | ||
|
|
||
| ## Backwards Compatibility *(Optional)* | ||
|
|
||
| The max account info length increase for CPI's and new costs will be feature | ||
| gated. Since the limit is being increased, existing behavior will not be | ||
| restricted. | ||
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.
Didn't you already raise the limit in solana-labs/solana#27242?
The feature gate is still there: https://github.com/anza-xyz/agave/blob/d54feac498c6ce29fce9b4b262ea3ba1d3bb5a5e/syscalls/src/cpi.rs#L932
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.
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. The
increase_tx_account_lock_limitfeature gate is currently only activated on devnet and it does two things:SIMD-0339 should change the CPI account info limit to 255 no matter whether the
increase_tx_account_lock_limitfeature gate is active or not. This SIMD has nothing to do with the tx account lock limit. It's more of an acknowledgement that account info length can contain duplicates and should be allowed to be as long as the ix account length and not necessarily the same as the tx account lock limit.