EOF - TXCREATE and InitcodeTransaction type
Video
Original
Abstract
EVM Object Format (EOF) removes the possibility to create contracts using creation transactions (with an empty to
field), CREATE
or CREATE2
instructions. We introduce a new instruction: TXCREATE
, as well as a new transaction type (InitcodeTransaction
), to provide a way to create contracts using EOF containers in transaction data.
Motivation
This EIP uses terminology from the EIP-3540 which introduces the EOF format.
Creation transaction and creation instructions CREATE
and CREATE2
are means provided by legacy EVM to deploy new code, but per requirement of removing code observability, they are not allowed to deploy EOF code. To allow Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs) to deploy EOF contrats, there must be a way to create EOF contracts using bytecode delivered in transaction data.
Additionally, the new instruction and transaction type introduced in this EIP enable contracts to create other contracts using initcode from the transaction data, which in legacy EVM is achieved via a combination of CREATE
or CREATE2
and loading the initcode from calldata.
This mechanism complements EOFCREATE
and RETURNCONTRACT
instructions from EIP-7620, and thus all use cases of contract creation that are available in legacy EVM are enabled for EOF.
Specification
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 and RFC 8174.
Parameters
Constant | Value |
---|---|
INITCODE_TX_TYPE | Bytes1(0x05) |
MAX_INITCODE_COUNT | 256 |
CREATOR_CONTRACT_ADDRESS | tbd |
CREATOR_CONTRACT_BYTECODE | tbd |
TX_CREATE_COST | Defined as 32000 in the Ethereum Execution Layer Specs |
STACK_DEPTH_LIMIT | Defined as 1024 in the Ethereum Execution Layer Specs |
GAS_CODE_DEPOSIT | Defined as 200 in the Ethereum Execution Layer Specs |
TX_DATA_COST_PER_ZERO | Defined as 4 in the Ethereum Execution Layer Specs |
TX_DATA_COST_PER_NON_ZERO | Defined as 16 in the Ethereum Execution Layer Specs |
MAX_CODE_SIZE | Defined as 24576 in EIP-170 |
MAX_INITCODE_SIZE | Defined as 2 * MAX_CODE_SIZE in EIP-3860 |
Transaction Types
Introduce new transaction InitcodeTransaction
(type INITCODE_TX_TYPE
) which extends EIP-1559 (type 2) transaction by adding a new field initcodes: List[ByteList[MAX_INITCODE_SIZE], MAX_INITCODE_COUNT]
.
The initcodes
can only be accessed via the TXCREATE
instruction (see below), therefore InitcodeTransactions
are intended to be sent to contracts including TXCREATE
in their execution.
We introduce a standardized Creator Contract, which eliminates the need to have create transactions with empty to
. See Creator Contract for details.
Gas schedule
initcodes
items data costs the same as calldata: transaction gas of an InitcodeTransaction
is extended to include tokens in initcodes
alongside tokens in calldata
. Using the conventions from EIP-7623, the transaction gas is calculated as:
STANDARD_TOKEN_COST = 4 TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN = 10 tokens_in_calldata = zero_bytes_in_calldata + nonzero_bytes_in_calldata * 4 tokens_in_initcodes = zero_bytes_in_initcodes + nonzero_bytes_in_initcodes * 4 tx.gasUsed = ( 21000 + max( STANDARD_TOKEN_COST * (tokens_in_calldata + tokens_in_initcodes) + execution_gas_used, TOTAL_COST_FLOOR_PER_TOKEN * (tokens_in_calldata + tokens_in_initcodes) ) )
Transaction validation
InitcodeTransaction
is invalid if there are zero entries ininitcodes
, or if there are more thanMAX_INITCODE_COUNT
entries.InitcodeTransaction
is invalid if any entry ininitcodes
is zero length, or if any entry exceedsMAX_INITCODE_SIZE
.InitcodeTransaction
is invalid if theto
isnil
.
Under transaction validation rules initcodes
are not validated for conforming to the EOF specification. They are only validated when accessed via TXCREATE
. This avoids potential DoS attacks of the mempool. If during the execution of an InitcodeTransaction
no TXCREATE
instruction is called, such transaction is still valid.
Legacy creation transactions (any transactions with empty to
) that start with the two bytes EF00
will be invalid. They will not be parsed into EOF containers and they will not be executed as legacy bytecode.
RLP and signature
Given the definitions from EIP-2718 the TransactionPayload
for an InitcodeTransaction
is the RLP serialization of:
[chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, to, value, data, access_list, initcodes, y_parity, r, s]
TransactionType
is INITCODE_TX_TYPE
and the signature values y_parity
, r
, and s
are calculated by constructing a secp256k1 signature over the following digest:
keccak256(INITCODE_TX_TYPE || rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, to, value, data, access_list, initcodes]))
The EIP-2718 ReceiptPayload
for this transaction is rlp([status, cumulative_transaction_gas_used, logs_bloom, logs])
.
Execution Semantics
Introduce a new instruction on the same block number EIP-3540 is activated on: TXCREATE
(0xed
).
TXCREATE
- deduct
TX_CREATE_COST
gas - halt with exceptional failure if the current frame is in
static-mode
. - pop
tx_initcode_hash
,value
,salt
,input_offset
,input_size
from the operand stack - perform (and charge for) memory expansion using
[input_offset, input_size]
- load initcode EOF container from the transaction
initcodes
array which hashes totx_initcode_hash
- fails (returns 0 on the stack) if such initcode does not exist in the transaction, or if called from a transaction of
TransactionType
other thanINITCODE_TX_TYPE
- caller's nonce is not updated and gas for initcode execution is not consumed.
- let
initcontainer
be that EOF container, andinitcontainer_size
its length in bytes
- fails (returns 0 on the stack) if such initcode does not exist in the transaction, or if called from a transaction of
- check that current call depth is below
STACK_DEPTH_LIMIT
and that caller balance is enough to transfervalue
- in case of failure return 0 on the stack, caller's nonce is not updated and gas for initcode execution is not consumed.
- validate the initcode container and all its subcontainers recursively
- unlike in general validation,
initcontainer
is additionally required to havedata_size
declared in the header equal to actualdata_section
size. - validation includes checking that the
initcontainer
does not containRETURN
orSTOP
- unlike in general validation,
- fails (returns 0 on the stack) if container was invalid
- caller’s nonce is not updated and gas for initcode execution is not consumed.
- caller's memory slice
[input_offset:input_size]
is used as calldata - execute the container and deduct gas for execution. The 63/64th rule from EIP-150 applies.
- increment
sender
account's nonce - calculate
new_address
askeccak256(0xff || sender || salt)[12:]
- behavior on
accessed_addresses
and address collision is same asCREATE2
(rules forCREATE2
from EIP-684 and EIP-2929 apply toTXCREATE
) - an unsuccessful execution of initcode results in pushing
0
onto the stack- can populate returndata if execution
REVERT
ed sender
's nonce stays updated
- can populate returndata if execution
- a successful execution ends with initcode executing
RETURNCONTRACT{deploy_container_index}(aux_data_offset, aux_data_size)
instruction (see EIP-7620). After that:- load deploy EOF subcontainer at
deploy_container_index
in the container from whichRETURNCONTRACT
is executed - concatenate data section with
(aux_data_offset, aux_data_offset + aux_data_size)
memory segment and update data size in the header - if updated deploy container size exceeds
MAX_CODE_SIZE
, instruction exceptionally aborts - set
state[new_address].code
to the updated deploy container - push
new_address
onto the stack
- load deploy EOF subcontainer at
- deduct
GAS_CODE_DEPOSIT * deployed_code_size
gas
Note that the implementations are expected to cache the result of container validation for the time of current transaction execution, and therefore the cost of each container's validation is sufficiently covered by InitcodeTransaction
intrinsic cost (initcodes charge).
Creator Contract
We introduce a standardised Creator Contract (i.e. written in EVM, but existing at a known address), which eliminates the need to have create transactions with empty to
.
At the start of the block in which EIP-3540 activates, set the code of CREATOR_CONTRACT_ADDRESS
to CREATOR_CONTRACT_BYTECODE
. CREATOR_CONTRACT_ADDRESS
is not treated like a precompile. CREATOR_CONTRACT_BYTECODE
corresponds to the following source code compiled to EOF:
{ /// Takes [tx_initcode_hash][salt][init_data] as input, /// creates contract and returns the address or failure otherwise // init_data.length can be 0, but the first 2 words are mandatory let size := calldatasize() if lt(size, 64) { revert(0, 0) } calldatacopy(0, 0, size) // copy tx_initcode_hash, salt and init_data to memory to hash let final_salt := keccak256(0, size) let tx_initcode_hash := calldataload(0) let init_data_size := sub(size, 64) // reuse init_data which has been already copied to memory above let ret := txcreate(tx_initcode_hash, callvalue(), final_salt, 64, init_data_size) if iszero(ret) { let ret_data_size := returndatasize() returndatacopy(0, 0, ret_data_size) revert(0, ret_data_size) } mstore(0, ret) return(0, 32) // Helper to compile this with existing Solidity (with --strict-assembly mode) function txcreate(a, b, c, d, e) -> f { f := verbatim_5i_1o(hex"ed", a, b, c, d, e) } }
Rationale
TXCREATE
failure modes
TXCREATE
has two "light" failure modes in case the initcontainer is not present and in case the EOF validation is unsuccessful. An alternative design where both cases led to a "hard" failure (consuming the entire gas available) was considered. We decided to have the more granular and forgiving failure modes in order to align the gas costs incurred to the actual work the EVM performs.
Creator Contract
EOF contract creation requires a predeployed Creator Contract to be introduced, because neither legacy contracts nor create transactions can deploy EOF code to bootstrap. The alternative approach was to continue using legacy creation mechanisms, by either still relying on fetching the initcode from memory and not satisfy the overarching requirement of code non-observability, or to abuse the legacy creation transactions mechanism.
Since previous discussions about TXCREATE
, which led to its removal from EOF along with the Creator Contract, there is wider consensus to allow predeploy contracts be put into the state, for example as a means to reduce the number of supported precompiles. Meanwhile, opinions about the importance of supporting deployments to deterministic, counterfactual, cross-chain addresses have been voiced by the community, making the case for this proposal stronger.
This also makes EIP-7698 (EOF - Creation transaction) no longer an essential requirement for deploying EOF contracts onto the chain. The EIP could be removed from EOFv1 and withdrawn.
New address hashing scheme
TXCREATE
uses the scheme new_address = keccak256(0xff || sender || salt)[12:]
, same as EOFCREATE
instruction. The decision whether to include initcontainer hash into salt is left to the TXCREATE
caller. See EIP-7620 for detailed rationale.
EOF creation transactions vs deployment patterns
Relying on the EOF creation transactions as alternative solution makes it impossible for smart contract wallets to deploy arbitrary EOF contracts (only EOAs can). At the same time, it is a use case current legacy creation rules allow, thanks to CREATE
and CREATE2
instructions. A workaround where those arbitrary EOF contracts are first "uploaded" to a factory contract, and then deployed using an EXTDELEGATECALL
-EOFCREATE
sequence, is very expensive, as it requires the deployed contract to be put on-chain twice. Because of this, the approach proposed in this EIP is more compatible with the Account Abstraction (AA) roadmap, where smart contract wallets should have feature parity with EOAs.
On top of this, relying on nonce-based hashing scheme to obtain addresses of newly created contracts, like in the case of the EOF creation transactions, would prevent EOF contracts from being deployed counterfactually to deterministic, cross-chain addresses. Introduction of the TXCREATE
instruction, combined with the proposed "toehold" Creator Contract predeployed to an agreed upon address, supports this out of the box. ERCs can be written to provide other toehold contracts with features not supported by this inital contract, such as salt-less deployment and hashing in the sender's address as part of the salt.
Backwards Compatibility
This change poses no risk to backwards compatibility, as it is introduced at the same time EIP-3540 is. The new instruction are not introduced for legacy bytecode (code which is not EOF formatted), and the contract creation options do not change for legacy bytecode. The transactions of the new type are invalid until this change activates.
Security Considerations
Needs discussion.
Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.
Not miss a beat of EIPs' update?
Subscribe EIPs Fun to receive the latest updates of EIPs Good for Buidlers to follow up.
View all