[Proof] Implement scalable proof validation #1031

red-0ne · 2025-01-17T04:20:17Z

Summary

This PR refactors proof validation by distributing it across the proof submission workflow for better scalability.

The validation process is divided into two stages:

Proof Submission: Ensures the proof is well-formed and adheres to the current on-chain state.
Proof Module Endblocker: Handles computationally intensive tasks using self-contained parallel verification. It includes:
- Relay request and response signature verification.
- Validation of the ClosestMerkleProof.

Additionally, the proof module endblocker:

Deletes all the processed proofs
Reflects the verification result in the corresponding claim's ProofStatus field.

The potential supplier slashing is retained within the SettlePendingClaims flow, ensuring a clear separation of concerns.

Issue

[Code Health] Improve Claim settlement processing scalability #1013

Type of change

Select one or more from the following:

New feature, functionality or library
Consensus breaking; add the consensus-breaking label if so. See [Infra] Automatically add the consensus-breaking label #791 for details
Bug fix
Code health or cleanup
Documentation
Other (specify)

Testing

Unit Tests: make go_develop_and_test
LocalNet E2E Tests: make test_e2e
DevNet E2E Tests: Add the devnet-test-e2e label to the PR.

Sanity Checklist

I have tested my changes using the available tooling
I have commented my code
I have performed a self-review of my own code; both comments & source code
I create and reference any new tickets, if applicable
I have left TODOs throughout the codebase, if applicable

github-actions · 2025-01-22T01:05:13Z

The image is going to be pushed after the next commit.

You can use make trigger_ci to push an empty commit.

If you also want to run E2E tests, please add devnet-test-e2e label.

Olshansk

@red-0ne I did a first pass of this, but I plan to do a COMPLETE second pass as well.

This is very critical and going to need some work.

x/proof/keeper/proof.go

x/proof/module/abci.go

x/tokenomics/keeper/settle_pending_claims.go

x/proof/keeper/validate_proofs.go

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T19:54:03Z

proto/poktroll/proof/event.proto

@@ -43,3 +43,11 @@ message EventProofUpdated {
  uint64 num_estimated_compute_units = 5 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "num_estimated_compute_units"];
  cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin claimed_upokt = 6 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "claimed_upokt"];
 }
+
+// Event emitted after a proof has been checked for validity.


Can you #PUC on when/where this is happening (i.e. end blocker)

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T20:44:39Z

proto/poktroll/proof/event.proto

@@ -43,3 +43,11 @@ message EventProofUpdated {
  uint64 num_estimated_compute_units = 5 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "num_estimated_compute_units"];
  cosmos.base.v1beta1.Coin claimed_upokt = 6 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "claimed_upokt"];
 }
+
+// Event emitted after a proof has been checked for validity.
+message EventProofValidityChecked {


Thoughts on EventProofValidated?

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T20:45:03Z

proto/poktroll/proof/event.proto

+  poktroll.proof.Proof proof = 1 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "proof"];
+  uint64 block_height = 2 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "block_height"];
+  poktroll.proof.ClaimProofStatus proof_status = 3 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "proof_status"];
+  string reason = 4 [(gogoproto.jsontag) = "reason"];


#PUC what kind of values reason could hold

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T20:50:12Z

proto/poktroll/proof/types.proto

@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ message Claim {
  poktroll.session.SessionHeader session_header = 2;
  // Root hash returned from smt.SMST#Root().
  bytes root_hash = 3;
+  // Claim proof status captures the status of the proof for this claim.
+  // WARNING: This field MUST only be set by proofKeeper#EnsureValidProofSignaturesAndClosestPath
+  ClaimProofStatus proof_status = 4;
 }


message Claim { // Address of the supplier's operator that submitted this claim string supplier_operator_address = 1 [(cosmos_proto.scalar) = "cosmos.AddressString"]; // Session header this claim is for poktroll.session.SessionHeader session_header = 2; // Root hash from smt.SMST#Root() bytes root_hash = 3; // IMPORTANT: This field MUST only be set by proofKeeper#EnsureValidProofSignaturesAndClosestPath ProofValidationState proof_validation_state = 4; }

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T20:51:06Z

proto/poktroll/proof/types.proto

+// ClaimProofStatus defines the status of the proof for a claim.
+// The default value is NOT_FOUND, whether the proof is required or not.
+enum ClaimProofStatus {
+  NOT_FOUND = 0;
+  VALID = 1;
+  INVALID = 2;
+}


Suggested change

// ClaimProofStatus defines the status of the proof for a claim.

// The default value is NOT_FOUND, whether the proof is required or not.

enum ClaimProofStatus {

NOT_FOUND = 0;

VALID = 1;

INVALID = 2;

}

// Status of proof validation for a claim

// Default is PENDING_VALIDATION regardless of proof requirement

enum ProofValidationState {

PENDING_VALIDATION = 0;

VALIDATED = 1;

INVALID = 2;

}

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:35:17Z

x/proof/keeper/validate_proofs.go

+
+	// Retrieve the corresponding claim for the proof submitted so it can be
+	// used in the proof validation below.
+	// EnsureWellFormedProof has already validated that the claim referenced by the


#PUC when this was called

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:36:09Z

x/proof/keeper/validate_proofs.go

+	coordinator.coordinatorMu.Lock()
+	defer coordinator.coordinatorMu.Unlock()
+
+	// Update the claim to reflect its corresponding the proof validation result.


Suggested change

// Update the claim to reflect its corresponding the proof validation result.

// Update the claim to reflect the validation result of the associated proof.

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:39:00Z

x/proof/module/abci.go

+
+	logger := k.Logger().With("method", "EndBlocker")
+
+	// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and removes invalid ones.


Don't we remove

Suggested change

// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and removes invalid ones.

// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and:

// 1. Updates the proof validation status in the associated claim

// 2. Removes all processed proofs from onchain state

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:40:33Z

x/proof/module/abci.go

+	}
+
+	logger.Info(fmt.Sprintf(
+		"validated %d proofs: %d valid, %d invalid",


Suggested change

"validated %d proofs: %d valid, %d invalid",

"checked %d proofs: %d valid, %d invalid",

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:42:01Z

x/tokenomics/keeper/settle_pending_claims.go

+			// The tokenomics end blocker, which calls SettlePendingClaims, is ALWAYS executed
+			// AFTER the proof submission window closes. In contrast, the proof end blocker,
+			// which handles proof validation, is ALWAYS executed WITHIN the proof submission
+			// window of the same session number.
+			// This ensures that proof validation is completed before claims settlement,
+			// as they occur at different block heights.


Suggested change

// The tokenomics end blocker, which calls SettlePendingClaims, is ALWAYS executed

// AFTER the proof submission window closes. In contrast, the proof end blocker,

// which handles proof validation, is ALWAYS executed WITHIN the proof submission

// window of the same session number.

// This ensures that proof validation is completed before claims settlement,

// as they occur at different block heights.

// IMPORTANT: Proof validation and claims settlement timing:

// - Proof validation (proof end blocker): Executes WITHIN proof submission window

// - Claims settlement (tokenomics end blocker): Executes AFTER window closes

// This ensures proofs are validated before claims are settled

Olshansk · 2025-01-24T21:47:03Z

@red-0ne Ty for taking all of my feedback in the iteration. Looking much better!

I think it should. be g2g after another round of review.

feat: scalable proof validation

074743d

red-0ne added scalability proof Claim & Proof life cycle labels Jan 17, 2025

red-0ne added this to the Beta TestNet Iteration milestone Jan 17, 2025

red-0ne requested review from bryanchriswhite and Olshansk January 17, 2025 04:20

red-0ne self-assigned this Jan 17, 2025

fix: Go lint slice initialization

c84ebe1

okdas added the push-image CI related - pushes images to ghcr.io label Jan 22, 2025

Empty commit

d87e1b3

Olshansk requested changes Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

red-0ne added 4 commits January 23, 2025 16:18

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/proof-endblocker

6ca0349

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/proof-endblocker

b4e5074

chore: address review change requests

4ed42b3

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/proof-endblocker

4a6e1e8

red-0ne requested a review from Olshansk January 24, 2025 05:51

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into feat/proof-endblocker

832e985

Olshansk requested changes Jan 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[Proof] Implement scalable proof validation #1031

[Proof] Implement scalable proof validation #1031

red-0ne commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Jan 22, 2025

Olshansk left a comment

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk Jan 24, 2025

Olshansk commented Jan 24, 2025

	// Update the claim to reflect its corresponding the proof validation result.
	// Update the claim to reflect the validation result of the associated proof.


		logger := k.Logger().With("method", "EndBlocker")

		// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and removes invalid ones.

-	// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and removes invalid ones.
+	// Iterates through all proofs submitted in this block and:
+	// 1. Updates the proof validation status in the associated claim
+	// 2. Removes all processed proofs from onchain state

	"validated %d proofs: %d valid, %d invalid",
	"checked %d proofs: %d valid, %d invalid",

[Proof] Implement scalable proof validation #1031

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[Proof] Implement scalable proof validation #1031

Conversation

red-0ne commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading

Summary

Issue

Type of change

Testing

Sanity Checklist

github-actions bot commented Jan 22, 2025

Olshansk left a 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

Olshansk commented Jan 24, 2025

red-0ne commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading