SIMD XXXX: Enable Core BPF Programs #2

buffalojoec · 2023-11-09T11:46:57Z

Roadmap

This is SIMD 1/4 expected for Multi-Client Feature Gates. See #3.

Goals:

An official process for migrating native programs to BPF
Expanded control over pending feature activations
Automatic feature activation selection based on stake weight with supporting
software
Decentralized control over queuing new runtime features

Resulting Architecture:

👉 Enable Core BPF Programs: The official process by which core
contributors migrate native programs to "core" BPF programs and how those
programs are upgraded.
Feature Control: Features can be created by anyone. Each is owned by the
core Feature Gate program at Feature111111111111111111111111111111111111,
which gives core contributors added control over pending activations.
Feature Recognition & Activation: Features qualify for activation based
on stake support of nodes who recognize the feature in their software
version.
Feature Queuing: A governance process nominates eligible features that
should be queued for activation.

Summary

This SIMD outlines the process by which native programs will become "core" BPF
programs, and how changes to these programs will be managed.

buffalojoec · 2023-11-09T11:51:54Z

Note:

Revised format for the "header" item in the SIMD "Summary" section and the Pull Request body.
Header points to revised overarching tracking issue in this repository (SIMD Roadmap: Multi-Client Feature Gates #3).

It's kind of scary, but I think inevitable, that the process of migrating a native program to core BPF will basically consist of re-writing the program as BPF and then swapping it with the process outlined here. There's no way to really do it incrementally because the address must match (😳).

A good process for failover in case of any problems upgrading a core BPF program would be good to have. I was thinking something like the following:

A backup account is used to store the most recent version of the target program before it was upgraded
Somehow, the newly upgraded program is tested for newly introduced bugs
If anything fails, the runtime can replace the program with the previous version

However I'm not really sure how we could test it via runtime.

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

CriesofCarrots · 2023-11-09T18:34:27Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+## Detailed Design
+
+Core BPF programs shall be non-upgradeable BPF programs deployed with the
+BPFLoader.


Suggested change

BPFLoader.

`BPFLoader2111111111111111111111111111111111`.

?

Actually this confused me when I went to test a few things out. For example, if I deploy my own program and use

solana program deploy --final my_program.so

then the upgrade authority gets set to None, but it's still owned by the upgradeable loader and still has a data account. Whereas a program like Tokenkeg is owned by the BPF Loader and does not have a data account.

I would prefer the latter setup if possible for core BPF programs.

Yes, solana program deploy uses the upgradeable loader by default. I think that we supported both in the cli for a while, but at this point, we would have to write a new deployment cli to use the non-upgradeable loader.

I think it makes more sense to enforce core BPF programs to be one single program account owned by the non-upgradeable loader, just to add to the distinction. Wdyt?

CriesofCarrots · 2023-11-09T18:35:53Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+The process for migrating an existing native program to a core BPF program shall
+be the same as upgrading a core BPF program.


How can it be exactly the same? Presumably we want to run some checks on the native-program account in question, and these will have to be different than would be run against a BPF program. Maybe "essentially" the same?

What sort of checks are you thinking of?

Is this account owned by the native loader?

Is the account state what we expect, ie. does it contain the name of the program we expect to be replacing?

I've added this to the proposal, but I think your second bullet depends on the discussion of which loader should own core BPF programs, and whether or not they should be single-account programs.

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

CriesofCarrots · 2023-11-09T19:05:34Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+Here is an example of such a function:
+
+```rust
+enum TargetProgram {
+ System,
+ Stake,
+ Vote,
+ /* ... */
+}
+
+fn upgrade_core_program(target_program: TargetProgram, source: Pubkey) {
+ /* replacement logic */
+}
+```


Hmm, are you implying with this example that the runtime will only permits programs in some list of Core BPF Programs to be upgraded via this process? Let's make it clear in the design description whether any non-upgradeable BPF program can be upgraded this way, or just a set list of Core BPF Programs.
Then remove this stub code.

Yes, and if we add a new program we add it to the list! This would be for maximum safety when using this function in a feature gate, versus two arbitrary program addresses provided as parameters.

Let's make it clear in the design description whether any non-upgradeable BPF program can be upgraded this way, or just a set list of Core BPF Programs.

I think it makes sense to fixate it to a list, since that restricts the use of this method - which I think is good. I think it should be pretty restrictive which programs are allowed to be upgraded like this, and explicitly laid out in the code when a feature gate is created for it.

Wdyt?

Sure, a list does make sense, I'm fine with it.

Like you said, we can't enforce Firedancer to use such an approach, so I've included it as a suggestion.

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

pgarg66 · 2023-11-11T23:04:38Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+
+## Detailed Design
+
+Core BPF programs shall be non-upgradeable BPF programs deployed with


Do we want these programs to use PRv2 ABI/API? If so, LoaderV411111111111111111111111111111111111 would be used to deploy the programs.

If Loader v4 is live we can use that instead! It would make sense for sure.

pgarg66 · 2023-11-11T23:10:20Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+2. Generate a new keypair for the **source** program.
+3. Deploy the program to the **source** address.
+4. Generate a new keypair for the **feature gate**.
+5. Create a new feature gate for replacing the **target** program with the


Does replacing mean the contents of source program account will be copied over to target program account? If so, it'll be useful mention the constraints that must be met before the target program is replaced. For example, should the program authority for source and target be the same?

Yep this is what I mean. And yeah, good shout. We should have a series of pretty robust checks on the swap.

But that is precisely the mechanics of an upgradeable program:
Prepare a buffer account, verify that the program is ok, then replace the target program and delete the buffer. Only difference would be that a feature gate would send the upgrade transaction.

Yeah, you're right. How instead would you propose to make an upgrade transaction only possible through feature gate?

pgarg66 · 2023-11-11T23:16:26Z

proposals/enable-core-bpf-programs.md

+An additional optional field could be added to feature gate issues for the
+**target program** being upgraded.
+
+A hard-coded list of all supported core BPF programs should be used to conduct


Do we expect this list to be frozen, or could more core programs be added in future? I am guessing it's the latter, and feature gates will be used to update the list. Just want to clear up my understanding.

Yes, definitely latter.

Lichtso · 2023-11-13T17:34:35Z

A couple of thoughts:

For on-chain programs we introduced delayed visibility, meaning that the upgraded program appears to be closed for the rest of the slot in which it was upgraded in order to prevent pipeline stalls. For these migrated built-in programs there should be an exception as they can not be closed even for a single transaction.
Removing these built-in programs from the protocol by deploying them on-chain is a very welcome reduction of complexity of the protocol. However, it also means that these built-in programs do not get the benefit of multiple implementations (from the multiple validator projects) anymore.
For quality assurance in both: testing of new versions of these migrated built-ins and their continuous operation, it might be interesting to have multiple implementations being deployed on chain under the same address and running transactions through them simultaneously, to see that they come to the same conclusions. This could also be done as a form of random sampling instead of all the time. This however probably belongs into a different proposal.

buffalojoec · 2023-11-14T21:25:11Z

Hey thanks for sharing these thoughts, it's a big help! Seems we may want a lot of VM/PRv2 considerations in here.

For on-chain programs we introduced delayed visibility, meaning that the upgraded program appears to be closed for the rest of the slot in which it was upgraded in order to prevent pipeline stalls. For these migrated built-in programs there should be an exception as they can not be closed even for a single transaction.

This seems a bit strange, although I'm sure you have valid reasons. Where can I read more about this change?

Agreed they have to be exempt from this delay. I will add it to our growing list of special permissions!

Removing these built-in programs from the protocol by deploying them on-chain is a very welcome reduction of complexity of the protocol. However, it also means that these built-in programs do not get the benefit of multiple implementations (from the multiple validator projects) anymore.

This is true, and I think it's worth surveying a bit on whether or not it's worth the trade-off.

For quality assurance in both: testing of new versions of these migrated built-ins and their continuous operation, it might be interesting to have multiple implementations being deployed on chain under the same address and running transactions through them simultaneously, to see that they come to the same conclusions. This could also be done as a form of random sampling instead of all the time. This however probably belongs into a different proposal.

This also piqued my interest when it was proposed a few times before/during Breakpoint. Sounds like you've also been considering it.

We can move this discussion somewhere more relevant, but it does have some slight implications on this SIMD, since here we're defining what constitutes a "core BPF program", and the ability to simulate alongside multiple implementations of each might be worth partially detailing in here.

Fwiw, implementing a BPF program multiple different ways to test against each other for reliance is not too different than multiple clients agreeing on execution results.

Lichtso · 2023-11-14T22:47:46Z

This seems a bit strange, although I'm sure you have valid reasons. Where can I read more about this change?

@buffalojoec Here: solana-labs/solana#29654. We also considered a seamless transition of old to new in redeployment of programs but the accounts-db and snapshot can only hold one version of a program in a slot / fork so it was ruled out.

buffalojoec · 2023-11-18T14:48:49Z

Closing to move to official SIMD repo.

solana-foundation#88

CriesofCarrots reviewed Nov 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

pgarg66 reviewed Nov 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

buffalojoec force-pushed the enable-core-bpf-programs branch from aa16c8d to 9c4ff7c Compare November 18, 2023 14:46

simd: enable core bpf programs

e53c3cd

buffalojoec force-pushed the enable-core-bpf-programs branch from 9c4ff7c to e53c3cd Compare November 18, 2023 14:48

buffalojoec closed this Nov 18, 2023

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

SIMD XXXX: Enable Core BPF Programs #2

SIMD XXXX: Enable Core BPF Programs #2

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

CriesofCarrots Nov 9, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 9, 2023

CriesofCarrots Nov 10, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 10, 2023

CriesofCarrots Nov 9, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 9, 2023

CriesofCarrots Nov 10, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 10, 2023

CriesofCarrots Nov 9, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 9, 2023

CriesofCarrots Nov 10, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 10, 2023

pgarg66 Nov 11, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 12, 2023

pgarg66 Nov 11, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 12, 2023

Lichtso Nov 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

buffalojoec Nov 14, 2023

pgarg66 Nov 11, 2023

buffalojoec Nov 11, 2023

Lichtso commented Nov 13, 2023

buffalojoec commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Lichtso commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

buffalojoec commented Nov 18, 2023

		The process for migrating an existing native program to a core BPF program shall
		be the same as upgrading a core BPF program.


		## Detailed Design

		Core BPF programs shall be non-upgradeable BPF programs deployed with

SIMD XXXX: Enable Core BPF Programs #2

SIMD XXXX: Enable Core BPF Programs #2

Conversation

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Roadmap

Summary

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Lichtso Nov 13, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Lichtso commented Nov 13, 2023

buffalojoec commented Nov 14, 2023 • edited Loading

Lichtso commented Nov 14, 2023 • edited Loading

buffalojoec commented Nov 18, 2023

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

buffalojoec commented Nov 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Lichtso Nov 13, 2023 •

edited

Loading

buffalojoec commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Lichtso commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading