* paras: `include_pvf_check_statement` rt bench
Resolves#4933
This PR adds a benchmark for the `include_pvf_check_statement`
dispatchable. This is a necessary step to make it work without
modifications. That enables us to proceed with testing on Versi.
This introduces 5 new benchmarks. Those measure performance of the
`include_pvf_check_statement` under 2 different conditions:
1. regular vote submission. That's the common case.
2. submission of the last vote. That happens only once and leads to a
heavy finalization stage.
There are 2 different types of finalization (one for onboarding, one for
upgrading) and there are two outcomes: accepted and rejected. Those 4
are similar but I decided to cover them all and assign the maximum of
all 4. This is to avoid a situation when one of those paths becomes more
heavier than others and opens up an attack venue.
The regular vote submission weight is drastically different from the
submission last vote weight. That's why in case during runtime
finalization was not executed the weight consumed value will be lowered
down to the regular vote submission.
The finalization weight is proportional to the number of "causes", i.e.
the events that caused the PVF pre-checking vote in the first place, and
here we assume that the maximum number of causes is 100.
Theoretically, there is nothing that prevents an adversary to
register/upgrade to more than 100 parachains. In that case, the consumed
weight will be lower than the actual time consumed by the finalization
process. That can enable a DoS vector.
However, practically, it is not very possible. Right now it is very
expensive to call `schedule_para_initialize` because it requires a very
large lock up of funds. Moreover, finalizing a vote with 100 causes
leads to around 31ms time spent. Finalizing more will require more time.
However, finalizing with 200 causes will cause ≈62ms delay. This is not
that bad since even though we had a full block and the adversary tried
to finalize 200 causes it won't be able to even exceed the operational
extrinsic boundary of 250ms and even if so it won't make big difference.
That said, this should be addressed later on, esp. when we enable
parathreads, which will make creating causes easier. One of potential
solutions will be shifting the logic of finalization into
`on_initialize`/`on_finalize`. Another is to create a maximum number of
causes and then reject upgrades or onboardings if that was reached.
* cargo run --quiet --profile=production --features=runtime-benchmarks -- benchmark --chain=polkadot-dev --steps=50 --repeat=20 --pallet=runtime_parachains::paras --extrinsic=* --execution=wasm --wasm-execution=compiled --heap-pages=4096 --header=./file_header.txt --output=./runtime/polkadot/src/weights/runtime_parachains_paras.rs
* cargo run --quiet --profile=production --features=runtime-benchmarks -- benchmark --chain=kusama-dev --steps=50 --repeat=20 --pallet=runtime_parachains::paras --extrinsic=* --execution=wasm --wasm-execution=compiled --heap-pages=4096 --header=./file_header.txt --output=./runtime/kusama/src/weights/runtime_parachains_paras.rs
* cargo run --quiet --profile=production --features=runtime-benchmarks -- benchmark --chain=westend-dev --steps=50 --repeat=20 --pallet=runtime_parachains::paras --extrinsic=* --execution=wasm --wasm-execution=compiled --heap-pages=4096 --header=./file_header.txt --output=./runtime/westend/src/weights/runtime_parachains_paras.rs
* cargo run --quiet --profile=production --features runtime-benchmarks -- benchmark --chain=rococo-dev --steps=50 --repeat=20 --pallet=runtime_parachains::paras --extrinsic=* --execution=wasm --wasm-execution=compiled --heap-pages=4096 --header=./file_header.txt --output=./runtime/rococo/src/weights/runtime_parachains_paras.rs
* Fix import error
Co-authored-by: Parity Bot <admin@parity.io>
Co-authored-by: Robert Klotzner <robert.klotzner@gmx.at>
Co-authored-by: Lldenaurois <Ljdenaurois@gmail.com>
* remove v0 primitives from polkadot-primitives
* first pass: remove v0
* fix fallout in erasure-coding
* remove v1 primitives, consolidate to v2
* the great import update
* update runtime_api_impl_v1 to v2 as well
* guide: add `Version` request for runtime API
* add version query to runtime API
* reintroduce OldV1SessionInfo in a limited way
This commit adds a new primitive called `ParachainsCache` to manipulate
the `Parachains` storage entry in a more convenient way.
Then, on top of that, this commit changes the logic of
`initialize_para_now` so that it is identical to what is used for
initialization of onboarding.
if the PVF pre-checking is disabled the runtime dispatchable will reject
any attempts of submission. This is also concern the unsigned tx
validation.
Right now, the `include_pvf_check_statement` dispatchable is effectively
uncallable because of the weight set to the maximum value. If we were to
benchmark it, it would become includable in a block, but since there
will be no active votes, the dispatchable won't do anything.
However, it will execute some code, like signature validation and
querying some storage entries. To be completely safe, we can bail out
early if the `pvf_checking_enabled` config is disabled. That's what this
PR does.
In this PR, paras module emit runtime events on certain PVF pre-checking
related conditions.
Specifically, there are 3 new events in the paras module:
1. PvfCheckStarted
2. PvfCheckAccepted
3. PvfCheckRejected
All of those have identifiers for the parachain that triggered the PVF
pre-checking and the validation code that goes through the pre-checking.
The mechanics of those are as follows. Each time a new PVF is added, be
it due to onboarding or upgrading, the `PvfCheckStarted` will be
triggered. If another parachain triggers a pre-checking process for the
validation code which is already being pre-checked, another
`PvfCheckStarted` event will be triggered with the corresponding para
id.
When the PVF pre-checking voting for a PVF was finished, several
`PvfCheckAccepted/Rejected` events will be triggered: one for each para id that
was subscribed to this check (i.e. was a "cause" for it).
If the PVF pre-checking is disabled, then one can still expect these
events to be fired. Since insta PVF approval is syncronous, the
`PvfCheckStarted` will be followed by the `PvfCheckAccepted` with the
same validation code and para id.
If somebody is interested in following validation code changes for a PVF
of a parachain, they would need to subscribe to those events. I did not
supply the topics for the events, since I am not sure if that's needed
or will be used, but they can be added later if needed.
Sergei Shulepov