SIMD-0186: Transaction Data Size Specification

Author: 2501babe

proposals/0186-transaction-data-size-specification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+---
+simd: '0186'
+title: Transaction Data Size Specification
+authors:
+  - Hanako Mumei
+category: Standard
+type: Core
+status: Review
+created: 2024-10-20
+feature: (fill in with feature tracking issues once accepted)
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+Before a transaction can be executed, every account it may read from or write to
+must be loaded, including any programs it may call. The amount of data a
+transaction is allowed to load is capped, and if it exceeds that limit, loading
+is aborted. This functionality is already implemented in the validator. The
+purpose of this SIMD is to explicitly define how transaction size is calculated.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Transaction data size accounting is currently unspecified, and the
+implementation-defined algorithm used in the Agave client exhibits some
+surprising behaviors:
+
+* BPF loaders required by top-level programs are counted against transaction
+data size. BPF loaders required by CPI programs are not. If a required BPF
+loader is also included in the accounts list, it is counted twice.
+* The size of a program owned by LoaderV3 may or may not include the size of its
+programdata depending on how the program account is used on the transaction.
+Programdata is also itself counted if included in the transaction accounts list.
+This means programdata may be counted zero, one, or two times per transaction.
+
+All validator clients must arrive at precisely the same transaction data size
+for all transactions because a difference of one byte can determine whether a
+transaction is executed or failed, and thus affects consensus. Also, we want the
+calculated transaction data size to correspond well with the actual amount of
+data the transaction requests.
+
+Therefore, this SIMD seeks to specify an algorithm that is straightforward to
+implement in a client-agnostic way, while also accurately accounting for the
+total data required by the transaction.
+
+## New Terminology
+
+One term is defined within the scope of this SIMD:
+
+* Valid program: a program that has been loaded, or a builtin. This definition
+excludes programs that have failed verification, or LoaderV3 programs that have
+been closed or have delayed visibility due to being deployed or modified in the
+current slot.
+
+These terms are not new, however we define them for clarity:
+
+* Top-level program: the program corresponding to the program id on a given
+instruction.
+* Instruction account: an account passed to an instruction, which allows its
+program to view the actual bytes of the account. CPI can only happen through
+programs provided as instruction accounts.
+* Transaction accounts list: all accounts for the transaction, which includes
+top-level programs, the fee-payer, all instruction accounts, and any extra
+accounts added to the list but not used for any purpose.
+
+## Detailed Design
+
+The proposed algorithm is as follows:
+
+1. Every account explicitly included on the transaction accounts list is counted
+once and only once.
+2. A valid program owned by LoaderV3 also includes the size of its programdata.
+3. Other than point 2, no accounts are implicitly added to the total data size.
+
+Transactions may include a
+`ComputeBudgetInstruction::SetLoadedAccountsDataSizeLimit` instruction to define
+a data size limit for the transaction. Otherwise, the default limit is 64MiB
+(`64 * 1024 * 1024` bytes).
+
+If a transaction exceeds its data size limit, account loading is aborted and the
+transaction is failed. Fees will be charged once
+`enable_transaction_loading_failure_fees` is enabled.
+
+Adding required loaders to transaction data size is abolished. They are treated
+the same as any other account: counted if on the transaction accounts list, not
+counted otherwise.
+
+Read-only and writable accounts are treated the same. In the future, when direct
+mapping is enabled, this SIMD may be amended to count them differently.
+
+As a consequence of 1 and 2, for LoaderV3 programs, programdata is counted twice
+if a transaction includes both programdata and the program account itself in the
+accounts list, unless the program is not valid for execution. This is partly
+done for ease of implementation: we always want to count programdata when the
+program is included, and there is no reason for any transaction to include both
+accounts except during initial deployment, in which case the program is not yet
+valid.
+
+We include programdata size in program size for LoaderV3 programs because in
+nearly all cases a transaction will include the program account (the only way to
+invoke the program) and will not include the programdata account because
+including it serves no purpose. Including the program account forces an
+unconditional load of the programdata account because it is required to compile
+the program for execution. Therefore we always count it, even when the program
+is an instruction account.
+
+There is no special handling for programs owned by the native loader, LoaderV1,
+or LoaderV2.
+
+Account size for programs owned by LoaderV4 is left undefined. This SIMD should
+be amended to define the required semantics before LoaderV4 is enabled on any
+network.
+
+## Alternatives Considered
+
+* Transaction data size accounting is already enabled, so the null option is to
+enshrine the current Agave behavior in the protocol. This is undesirable because
+the current behavior is highly idiosyncratic, and LoaderV3 program sizes are
+routinely undercounted.
+* Builtin programs are backed by accounts that only contain the program name as
+a string, typically making them 15-40 bytes. We could make them free when not
+instruction accounts, since they're part of the validator. However this
+adds complexity for no real benefit.
+
+## Impact
+
+The primary impact is this SIMD makes correctly implementing transaction data
+size accounting much easier for other validator clients.
+
+It makes transactions which include program accounts for CPI somewhat larger,
+but given the generous 64MiB limit, it is unlikely that any existing users will
+be affected.
+
+## Security Considerations
+
+Security impact is minimal because this SIMD merely simplifies an existing
+feature.
+
+This SIMD requires a feature gate.
+
+## Backwards Compatibility
+
+Transactions that call LoaderV3 programs via CPI and are extremely close to the
+64MiB limit may now exceed it.