From abb7c8c2b06d4fd5be4217d33b26ac3379874ea5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: William Banfield <4561443+williambanfield@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 11:47:02 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] RFC-009: Consensus Parameter Upgrades (#7524) Related to #7503 --- .../rfc-009-consensus-parameter-upgrades.md | 128 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 128 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/rfc/rfc-009-consensus-parameter-upgrades.md diff --git a/docs/rfc/rfc-009-consensus-parameter-upgrades.md b/docs/rfc/rfc-009-consensus-parameter-upgrades.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..60be878df --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/rfc/rfc-009-consensus-parameter-upgrades.md @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +# RFC 009 : Consensus Parameter Upgrade Considerations + +## Changelog + +- 06-Jan-2011: Initial draft (@williambanfield). + +## Abstract + +This document discusses the challenges of adding additional consensus parameters +to Tendermint and proposes a few solutions that can enable addition of consensus +parameters in a backwards-compatible way. + +## Background + +This section provides an overview of the issues of adding consensus parameters +to Tendermint. + +### Hash Compatibility + +Tendermint produces a hash of a subset of the consensus parameters. The values +that are hashed currently are the `BlockMaxGas` and the `BlockMaxSize`. These +are currently in the [HashedParams struct][hashed-params]. This hash is included +in the block and validators use it to validate that their local view of the consensus +parameters matches what the rest of the network is configured with. + +Any new consensus parameters added to Tendermint should be included in this +hash. This presents a challenge for verification of historical blocks when consensus +parameters are added. If a network produced blocks with a version of Tendermint that +did not yet have the new consensus parameters, the parameter hash it produced will +not reference the new parameters. Any nodes joining the network with the newer +version of Tendermint will have the new consensus parameters. Tendermint will need +to handle this case so that new versions of Tendermint with new consensus parameters +can still validate old blocks correctly without having to do anything overly complex +or hacky. + +### Allowing Developer-Defined Values and the `EndBlock` Problem + +When new consensus parameters are added, application developers may wish to set +values for them so that the developer-defined values may be used as soon as the +software upgrades. We do not currently have a clean mechanism for handling this. + +Consensus parameter updates are communicated from the application to Tendermint +within `EndBlock` of some height `H` and take effect at the next height, `H+1`. +This means that for updates that add a consensus parameter, there is a single +height where the new parameters cannot take effect. The parameters did not exist +in the version of the software that emitted the `EndBlock` response for height `H-1`, +so they cannot take effect at height `H`. The first height that the updated params +can take effect is height `H+1`. As of now, height `H` must run with the defaults. + +## Discussion + +### Hash Compatibility + +This section discusses possible solutions to the problem of maintaining backwards-compatibility +of hashed parameters while adding new parameters. + +#### Never Hash Defaults + +One solution to the problem of backwards-compatibility is to never include parameters +in the hash if the are using the default value. This means that blocks produced +before the parameters existed will have implicitly been created with the defaults. +This works because any software with newer versions of Tendermint must be using the +defaults for new parameters when validating old blocks since the defaults can not +have been updated until a height at which the parameters existed. + +#### Only Update HashedParams on Hash-Breaking Releases + +An alternate solution to never hashing defaults is to not update the hashed +parameters on non-hash-breaking releases. This means that when new consensus +parameters are added to Tendermint, there may be a release that makes use of the +parameters but does not verify that they are the same across all validators by +referencing them in the hash. This seems reasonably safe given the fact that +only a very far subset of the consensus parameters are currently verified at all. + +#### Version The Consensus Parameter Hash Scheme + +The upcoming work on [soft upgrades](https://github.com/tendermint/spec/pull/222) +proposes applying different hashing rules depending on the active block version. +The consensus parameter hash could be versioned in the same way. When different +block versions are used, a different set of consensus parameters will be included +in the hash. + +### Developer Defined Values + +This section discusses possible solutions to the problem of allowing application +developers to define values for the new parameters during the upgrade that adds +the parameters. + +#### Using `InitChain` for New Values + +One solution to the problem of allowing application developers to define values +for new consensus parameters is to call the `InitChain` ABCI method on application +startup and fetch the value for any new consensus parameters. The [response object][init-chain-response] +contains a field for `ConsensusParameter` updates so this may serve as a natural place +to put this logic. + +This poses a few difficulties. Nodes replaying old blocks while running new +software do not ever call `InitChain` after the initial time. They will therefore +not have a way to determine that the parameters changed at some height by using a +call to `InitChain`. The `EndBlock` response is how parameter changes at a height +are currently communicated to Tendermint and conflating these cases seems risky. + +#### Force Defaults For Single Height + +An alternate option is to not use `InitChain` and instead require chains to use the +default values of the new parameters for a single height. + +As documented in the upcoming [ADR-74][adr-74], popular chains often simply use the default +values. Additionally, great care is being taken to ensure that logic governed by upcoming +consensus parameters is not liveness-breaking. This means that, at worst-case, +chains will experience a single slow height while waiting for the new values to +by applied. + +#### Add a new `UpgradeChain` method + +An additional method for allowing chains to update the consensus parameters that +do not yet exist is to add a new `UpgradeChain` method to `ABCI`. The upgrade chain +method would be called when the chain detects that the version of block that it +is about to produce does not match the previous block. This method would be called +after `EndBlock` and would return the set of consensus parameters to use at the +next height. It would therefore give an application the chance to set the new +consensus parameters before running a height with these new parameter. + +### References + +[hashed-params]: https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/0ae974e63911804d4a2007bd8a9b3ad81d6d2a90/types/params.go#L49 +[init-chain-response]: https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/0ae974e63911804d4a2007bd8a9b3ad81d6d2a90/abci/types/types.pb.go#L1616 +[adr-74]: https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/pull/7503