You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
While doing #159 I've realised that all the opcodes using memory locations are very likely consensus-broken because they are straight converted using utils.bufferToInt to Javascript numbers.
If the input number is >= 53 bits it will not behave correctly - old ethereumjs-util truncated it silently, while the new one properly throws an exception.
In many of the cases, if such a large number is encountered, it should result on an OOG, but in our case it can fail very likely with INVALID_OPCODE.
Makes me wonder if the state tests have a good coverage (because we do pass them...) or they are left to the VM tests to check these bounds?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
While doing #159 I've realised that all the opcodes using memory locations are very likely consensus-broken because they are straight converted using
utils.bufferToInt
to Javascript numbers.If the input number is >= 53 bits it will not behave correctly - old ethereumjs-util truncated it silently, while the new one properly throws an exception.
In many of the cases, if such a large number is encountered, it should result on an OOG, but in our case it can fail very likely with
INVALID_OPCODE
.Makes me wonder if the state tests have a good coverage (because we do pass them...) or they are left to the VM tests to check these bounds?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: