Key not found in preimage #442
Conversation
| ) { | ||
| // A list of the contracts that accessed to the storage from 0x1 using `get_block_hash_syscall` | ||
| let special_addresses: Vec<ContractAddress> = vec
| /// Inserts additional keys for retrieving storage proof from the block hash contract (address 0x1). | ||
| /// Certain contracts necessitate extra nodes from the contract 0x1. However, since Blockifier does not provide this information, | ||
| /// it is necessary to add some extra keys to ensure the inclusion of the required nodes. | ||
| /// This approach serves as a workaround. The ideal solutions would be to either retrieve the full tree or obtain information about the necessary nodes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add:
obtain information about the accessed storage values (currently blockifier do not stores storage values accessed vie syscall: LINK to blockifier comment).
| 100 * STORED_BLOCK_HASH_BUFFER | ||
| } else { | ||
| STORED_BLOCK_HASH_BUFFER | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
x100 multiplier fix everything (also Mainnet?)
| // Include extra keys for contracts that trigger get_block_hash_syscall | ||
| insert_extra_storage_reads_keys(&storage_reads, old_block_number, &mut keys); | ||
|
|
||
| // Within the Starknet architecture, the address 0x1 is a special address that maps block numbers to their corresponding block hashes. As some contracts might access storage reads using `get_block_hash_syscall`, it is necessary to add some extra keys here. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As some contracts might access storage reads using get_block_hash_syscall and Blockifier currently do not stores these accessed values.
| let additional_storage_reads: Vec<Felt> = storage_reads | ||
| .values() | ||
| .flat_map(|vec| vec.iter().cloned().filter(|x| x <= &Felt252::from(block_number))) | ||
| .collect::<HashSet<Felt>>() | ||
| .into_iter() | ||
| .collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the rationale for this?
It seems that you are preventing to call storage values (of contract 0x1) that are also called in another contract tree.
Why just not get all the storage values that we will ask (we obtain this in insert_extra_storage_reads_keys, given if we need it or not) and just extend
keys.entry(block_hash_contract_address).or_default().extend(
It seems that we are adding, subtracting and doing some logic that could be much simpler.
Does it makes sense?
This reverts commit 8fcae6c.
ftheirs
force-pushed
the
ft/key_not_found_in_preimage
branch
14 times, most recently
from
a81cac2 to
88d34bc
Compare
ftheirs
force-pushed
the
ft/key_not_found_in_preimage
branch
from
88d34bc to
2cb5da5
Compare
Problem: Execution from SNOS for the following blocks results in a
key not found in preimageerror:237025, 237030, 237037, 237042, 237044, 237053, 237083, 237086, 235385, 235620Better description from the issue can be found in #443
Solution:
Add the missing keys required to retrieve the correct storage proof for the contract address
0x1.Closes #443
Type
Description
Breaking changes?