-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 760
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
Inconsistent Memory Expansion Behavior while logging ethereumjs/evm
#3561
Comments
Hi there, thanks a lot for this report, you are right that the logging behavior of @ethereumjs/evm is not consistent with the other tested clients. The reason is because of how EthJS works internally, and also (partially) the way you log the output. In EthJS, to run a single step in the EVM, there are some steps, which I will summarize with the relevant ones:
Due to an optimization / the internal layout of the EVM, for memory-related gas opcodes we perform the "memory expansion cost" gas calculation (which is done once the memory has to be expanded beyond the current size of memory). For instance, (in your setup), if you MSTORE to a region which the memory has not yet expanded to, we thus have to pay expansion gas. To do so, internally (so in step 1, the "gas cost calculation") we check if this expansion has to be done, and if this is the case, we also set In your logging, you read Nevertheless, I think we should fix this, it is indeed inconsistent that in general we report the state before running the opcode, and in this case we update a variable which thus shows the state after running the opcode. |
Hmm, I just realized that the memory field can also be wrong 😅 Have to think if there is an easy way to fix this or if we need a specific flag just for this logging (which will impact performance, even if there is no logger attached 😅 ) |
Thanks for your detailed explanation! @jochem-brouwer. I'm afraid you are right. I added a new field var opTrace = {
'pc': data.pc,
'op': getValueByOpname(data.opcode.name),
'gas': '0x' + data.gasLeft.toString(16),
'gasCost': '0x' + data.opcode.fee.toString(16),
'memory': hexMemory,
'memSize': mem_size,
'stack': hexStack,
'depth': data.depth,
'opName': data.opcode.name,
'data.memory': data.memory // here
} The output shows the {"pc":35,"op":82,"gas":"0xfffff9","gasCost":"0x3","memory":"0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","memSize":32,"stack":["0x60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff","0x0"],"depth":0,"opName":"MSTORE","data.memory":{"0":0,"1":0,"2":0,"3":0,"4":0,"5":0,"6":0,"7":0,"8":0,"9":0,"10":0,"11":0,"12":0,"13":0,"14":0,"15":0,"16":0,"17":0,"18":0,"19":0,"20":0,"21":0,"22":0,"23":0,"24":0,"25":0,"26":0,"27":0,"28":0,"29":0,"30":0,"31":0}}
{"pc":42,"op":240,"gas":"0xffffea","gasCost":"0x7d00","memory":"0x60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","memSize":64,"stack":["0x32","0x0","0x16"],"depth":0,"opName":"CREATE","data.memory":{"0":96,"1":255,"2":96,"3":255,"4":96,"5":255,"6":96,"7":255,"8":96,"9":255,"10":96,"11":255,"12":96,"13":255,"14":96,"15":255,"16":96,"17":255,"18":96,"19":255,"20":96,"21":255,"22":96,"23":255,"24":96,"25":255,"26":96,"27":255,"28":96,"29":255,"30":96,"31":255,"32":0,"33":0,"34":0,"35":0,"36":0,"37":0,"38":0,"39":0,"40":0,"41":0,"42":0,"43":0,"44":0,"45":0,"46":0,"47":0,"48":0,"49":0,"50":0,"51":0,"52":0,"53":0,"54":0,"55":0,"56":0,"57":0,"58":0,"59":0,"60":0,"61":0,"62":0,"63":0}} I also checked the spec. All opcodes seem to follow the steps:
Since the specification does not define when logging should begin (as it is not part of the execution), I think logging should start even before the stack check(as stack operations will alter the elements in the stack). Anyway, thanks again! |
Just checked eip-3155 from geth (even though this eip is still a draft since 2020), it says that:
In geth implementation, the trace for memory is indeed before the expansion. |
What happened
Hello developers, I'm testing
ethereumjs/evm
's with other EVM implementations. I found an inconsistency thatethereumjs/evm
will expand the memory before the expand memory related opcodes are executed, whileGeth
,Besu
andPy-EVM
don't.Just as in this example, we can observe that the memory length is already determined before the
MSTORE
operation is executed. Similarly, before theCREATE
instruction is invoked, Geth, Besu, and Py-EVM all produce the same output.Ethereumjs/evm
Geth
As I am conducting differential testing, maintaining consistent output is very important to me. I'm curious to know if there is an issue with my test script (used
step
to log run time information) or with the implementation of theethereumjs/evm
. Details will be given later.Thinks for your time!
Environment
Script
This is the script I used to run
ethereumjs/evm
:The command line to run the script:
node test.js --code 7f60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff60ff600052603260006016f060005260406000f3 > jsevm.json
The bytecodes in the command line consist of:
Result
As the jsons have too many rows, I have to upload json files, sorry for the trouble.
gethout.json, besuout.json, pyout.json, jsout.json
Thanks for your patience!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: