Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update EIP-7830: Move to Review #9265

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 27, 2025
Merged

Update EIP-7830: Move to Review #9265

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3f956db
Mark EIP-7830 review
axic Jan 25, 2025
9ceec8a
Remove TODOs
axic Jan 25, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 1 addition & 7 deletions EIPS/eip-7830.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ title: Contract size limit increase for EOF
description: Raise the limit for only EOF contracts to 64 KiB
author: Alex Beregszaszi (@axic), Danno Ferrin (@shemnon)
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-7830-contract-size-limit-increase-for-eof/21927
status: Draft
status: Review
type: Standards Track
category: Core
created: 2024-11-29
Expand All @@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ Storage cost is already paid per contract byte.

[EIP-170](./eip-170.md) specifies `MAX_CODE_SIZE` as 24576 bytes, and [EIP-3860](./eip-3860.md) specifies `MAX_INITCODE_SIZE` as `2 * MAX_CODE_SIZE` (49152 bytes).

<!-- TODO: if profiling analysis shows we need to charge more for EOF analysis, this is where we can specify it. Either globally or for 0xef00 contracs -->
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@shemnon @chfast @gumb0 do we expect more cost for EOF analysis? I doubt.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We haven't measured this.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reminder: validation is only performed when a contract is brought in via a transaction. A factory create from an existing contract has no validation burden.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tracked in ipsilon/eof#175


Starting `FORK_BLOCK`, for EOF initcode/code (code starting with the `0xEF 0x00` bytes) the limit is changed:`MAX_CODE_SIZE` is set to 65536 bytes (64 KiB). This means `MAX_INITCODE_SIZE` becomes 131072 bytes (128 KiB).

## Rationale
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -60,16 +58,12 @@ A simple analysis shows contract deployements for 64 KiB contracts to be between

Note that the Max 30M gas contract size of 135 KiB is outside the limits of what is proposed in this EIP and is included to show what it would take to exceed current gas limits.

<!-- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2dd5sVnZNKXOpRknHhxt6MnTTN50c3b9d6ZU2rvqDQ/edit?usp=sharing -->
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@shemnon this is not accessible. If you want to make it public, can you post it on the magicians thread?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Made viewable, but being in a comment it will be deleted when going to final/last call.

Copy link
Member Author

@axic axic Jan 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It actually needs to deleted now going into review. Hence why I asked to post it on the magicians thread if it is still relevant.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's posted to the thread, you can delete.


## Backwards Compatibility

This is a backwards compatible change. Existing contracts are unaffected, and only new deployments see the effect.

## Security Considerations

<!-- TODO -->

Given the analysis cost is paid as part of deployment, the size of contract should have no effect on the runtime.

A more thorough analysis may be needed to detemine whether the proposed limit poses any risk because of client storage architectures.
Expand Down
Loading