core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool #31526 #1930

gzliudan · 2026-01-08T03:18:24Z

Proposed changes

Describe the big picture of your changes here to communicate to the maintainers why we should accept this pull request.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)
Regular KTLO or any of the maintaince work. e.g code style
CICD Improvement

Impacted Components

Which part of the codebase this PR will touch base on,

Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

Checklist

Put an ✅ in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
Tested the backwards compatibility.
Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
N/A

…m#27471

…eum#31430

coderabbitai · 2026-01-08T03:18:30Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR adds support for EIP-7702 SetCode transactions (type 0x04) with protection mechanisms to prevent transaction pool abuse. The key changes introduce a lazy transaction wrapper to defer full transaction resolution until needed, a reservation system to prevent address conflicts across subpools, and specialized handling for delegated accounts.

Key changes:

Introduced LazyTransaction wrapper to optimize transaction handling by deferring full resolution
Added cross-subpool address reservation tracking via ReservationTracker and Reserver to prevent conflicts
Implemented delegation limits restricting accounts with deployed or pending delegations to a single in-flight transaction
Moved transaction ordering logic from core/types to miner package with support for lazy transactions

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 18 out of 18 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
miner/ordering.go	New transaction ordering implementation using LazyTransaction with miner fee calculation
miner/ordering_test.go	Comprehensive tests for transaction ordering including legacy, EIP-1559, and special transaction separation
miner/worker.go	Updated to use LazyTransaction wrapper and new ordering functions
core/txpool/reserver.go	New reservation tracking system to ensure address exclusivity across subpools
core/txpool/txpool.go	Updated to create and pass reservation tracker to subpools
core/txpool/subpool.go	Added LazyTransaction type and updated SubPool interface signatures
core/txpool/validation.go	Added Prague fork validation for SetCode transactions and authorization checks
core/txpool/errors.go	Added new error types for account limits, reservations, and in-flight limits
core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool.go	Major changes: reservation tracking, SetCode validation, delegation limit enforcement, authority tracking
core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool_test.go	Extensive tests for SetCode transactions, delegations, and reorgs
core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool2_test.go	Updated test initialization to include reserver
core/types/transaction.go	Removed ordering code (moved to miner), added SetCodeAuthorities() and Time-related helper methods
core/types/transaction_test.go	Removed tests that were moved to miner package
core/types/tx_setcode.go	Changed SignSetCode parameter order from (auth, prv) to (prv, auth)
eth/protocol.go	Updated txPool interface Pending signature to return LazyTransaction
eth/sync.go	Updated to resolve LazyTransaction before appending to transaction list
eth/api_backend.go	Updated to resolve LazyTransaction when retrieving pool transactions
eth/helper_test.go	Updated test helper to return LazyTransaction from Pending

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:09Z

miner/worker.go

-
+		warped := lazyTx.Resolve()
+		if warped == nil || warped.Tx == nil {
+			break


Missing nil check for resolved transaction. If lazyTx.Resolve() returns nil or warped.Tx is nil, the code breaks at line 1089 when calling tx.To(). The break statement at line 1086 prevents processing nil transactions, but the logic should also handle the case where Resolve succeeds but Tx is nil, or skip to the next transaction instead of breaking the entire loop.

Suggested change

break

log.Debug("Skipping nil resolved transaction")

txs.Pop()

continue

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:09Z

miner/ordering_test.go

+			normalCount := 0
+			for tx := txset.Peek(); tx != nil; tx = txset.Peek() {
+				resolved := tx.Resolve()
+				if resolved == nil || resolved.Tx.To() == nil || *resolved.Tx.To() == common.BlockSignersBinary {


Potential nil pointer dereference. At line 253, the code checks if resolved is nil or resolved.Tx.To() is nil. However, if resolved is not nil but resolved.Tx is nil, the code will panic when accessing resolved.Tx.To(). The check should be updated to include resolved.Tx != nil before accessing resolved.Tx.To().

Suggested change

if resolved == nil || resolved.Tx.To() == nil || *resolved.Tx.To() == common.BlockSignersBinary {

if resolved == nil || resolved.Tx == nil || resolved.Tx.To() == nil || *resolved.Tx.To() == common.BlockSignersBinary {

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:09Z

core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool.go

+	// acquire the subpool lock until the transaction addition is completed.
+	for _, tx := range pool.all.locals {
+		senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)
+		pool.reserver.Release(senderAddr)
+	}
+	for _, tx := range pool.all.remotes {
+		senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)


The Clear method iterates over pool.all.locals and pool.all.remotes to release reservations, but this doesn't handle the case where multiple transactions from the same account are in the pool. Since each unique account should only have one reservation, calling Release for each transaction from the same sender will result in multiple Release calls for the same address. This will trigger the "pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address" error logged at line 102 of reserver.go for all but the first transaction from each account. The code should track unique sender addresses and only release each address once.

Suggested change

// acquire the subpool lock until the transaction addition is completed.

for _, tx := range pool.all.locals {

senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)

pool.reserver.Release(senderAddr)

}

for _, tx := range pool.all.remotes {

senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)

// acquire the subpool lock until the transaction addition is completed.

senders := make(map[common.Address]struct{})

for _, tx := range pool.all.locals {

senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)

if _, seen := senders[senderAddr]; seen {

continue

}

senders[senderAddr] = struct{}{}

pool.reserver.Release(senderAddr)

}

for _, tx := range pool.all.remotes {

senderAddr, _ := types.Sender(pool.signer, tx)

if _, seen := senders[senderAddr]; seen {

continue

}

senders[senderAddr] = struct{}{}

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:10Z

core/txpool/reserver.go

+func (h *Reserver) Has(address common.Address) bool {
+	h.tracker.lock.RLock()
+	defer h.tracker.lock.RUnlock()
+
+	_, exists := h.tracker.accounts[address]
+	return exists
+}


The Has method only checks if an address exists in the reservation map, but doesn't verify if it's owned by the current pool (checking the id). This means a pool can see that an address is reserved, but can't distinguish if it's reserved by itself or by another pool. This could lead to inconsistent behavior when making decisions based on reservation status. Consider adding an OwnedBy or IsOwnedBy method that checks both existence and ownership.

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:10Z

core/txpool/validation.go

+	if tx.Type() == types.SetCodeTxType {
+		if len(tx.SetCodeAuthorizations()) == 0 {
+			return fmt.Errorf("set code tx must have at least one authorization tuple")


The error message for SetCode transaction validation should be more descriptive. Instead of a generic message, consider using a defined error constant similar to other validation errors (e.g., ErrInsufficientFunds, ErrIntrinsicGas). This would make error handling more consistent and testable.

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:10Z

core/txpool/validation.go

 			return fmt.Errorf("%w: balance %v, queued cost %v, tx cost %v, overshot %v", core.ErrInsufficientFunds, balance, spent, cost, new(big.Int).Sub(need, newBalance))
 		}
+		// Transaction takes a new nonce value out of the pool. Ensure it doesn't
+		// overflow the number of permitted transactions from a single accoun


The comment has a typo: "accoun" should be "account". The comment should end with a period for consistency with other comments in the file.

Suggested change

// overflow the number of permitted transactions from a single accoun

// overflow the number of permitted transactions from a single account

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:11Z

core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool_test.go

+					t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with remote setcode transaction: %v", name, err)
+				}
+				if err := pool.addRemoteSync(pricedTransaction(0, 100000, minGasPrice, keyC)); err != nil {
+					t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with pending delegatio: %v", name, err)


The comment has a typo: "delegatio" should be "delegation". This appears to be an incomplete word.

Suggested change

t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with pending delegatio: %v", name, err)

t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with pending delegation: %v", name, err)

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:11Z

core/types/tx_setcode.go


 // SignSetCode creates a signed SetCode authorization.
-func SignSetCode(auth SetCodeAuthorization, prv *ecdsa.PrivateKey) (SetCodeAuthorization, error) {
+func SignSetCode(prv *ecdsa.PrivateKey, auth SetCodeAuthorization) (SetCodeAuthorization, error) {


The parameter order in SignSetCode has been changed from (auth, prv) to (prv, auth), which is a breaking API change. This parameter order reversal could break existing code that calls this function. Consider deprecating the old signature first or documenting this breaking change prominently in release notes.

Copilot · 2026-01-08T03:23:11Z

miner/ordering.go

+			if tx := lazyTx.Resolve(); tx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {
+				specialTxs = append(specialTxs, tx.Tx)


In the ordering.go file at line 133, the code calls tx.Resolve() without checking if the result is nil before accessing tx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction(). If Resolve() returns nil, this will panic with a nil pointer dereference. A nil check should be added before accessing the resolved transaction.

Suggested change

if tx := lazyTx.Resolve(); tx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {

specialTxs = append(specialTxs, tx.Tx)

resolvedTx := lazyTx.Resolve()

if resolvedTx == nil {

continue

}

if resolvedTx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {

specialTxs = append(specialTxs, resolvedTx.Tx)

gzliudan added 9 commits January 5, 2026 18:37

core/txpool/legacypool: handle missing head in reset ethereum#27479

5ffd91b

core/txpool/legacypool: narrow down the scope of the variable ethereu…

4d62cb0

…m#27471

core, eth, miner: 4844 blob transaction pool ethereum#26940

681699f

core/txpool: improve transaction validate

fc7c8ca

core/txpool,types: add support for SetCode transactions ethereum#31073

f3fc97a

core/txpool/legacypool: add setCodeTx reorg test ethereum#31206

5ba0bb3

core/txpool: move setcode tx validation into legacyPool ethereum#31209

9c3374c

core/txpool/legacypool: reject gapped tx from delegated account ether…

fbde41b

…eum#31430

core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool ethereum#31526

698b691

gzliudan requested review from AnilChinchawale, anunay-xin, benjamin202410, Copilot, liam-lai and wanwiset25 January 8, 2026 03:18

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of gzliudan January 8, 2026 03:18 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool #31526 #1930

core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool #31526 #1930

Uh oh!

gzliudan commented Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 8, 2026

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

-			break
+			log.Debug("Skipping nil resolved transaction")
+			txs.Pop()
+			continue

	if resolved == nil \|\| resolved.Tx.To() == nil \|\| *resolved.Tx.To() == common.BlockSignersBinary {
	if resolved == nil \|\| resolved.Tx == nil \|\| resolved.Tx.To() == nil \|\| *resolved.Tx.To() == common.BlockSignersBinary {

	// overflow the number of permitted transactions from a single accoun
	// overflow the number of permitted transactions from a single account

	t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with pending delegatio: %v", name, err)
	t.Fatalf("%s: failed to add with pending delegation: %v", name, err)

		if tx := lazyTx.Resolve(); tx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {
		specialTxs = append(specialTxs, tx.Tx)

-			if tx := lazyTx.Resolve(); tx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {
-				specialTxs = append(specialTxs, tx.Tx)
+			resolvedTx := lazyTx.Resolve()
+			if resolvedTx == nil {
+				continue
+			}
+			if resolvedTx.Tx.IsSpecialTransaction() {
+				specialTxs = append(specialTxs, resolvedTx.Tx)

core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool #31526 #1930

Are you sure you want to change the base?

core/txpool: add 7702 protection to blobpool #31526 #1930

Uh oh!

Conversation

gzliudan commented Jan 8, 2026

Proposed changes

Types of changes

Impacted Components

Checklist

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 8, 2026

Review skipped

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Jan 8, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant