feat: produce proposer slashings from observed equivocations - #9787
Merged
Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Contributor
Performance Report鉁旓笍 no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
wemeetagain
previously approved these changes
Aug 7, 2026
nflaig
commented
Aug 7, 2026
| this.emitter.emit(routes.events.EventType.proposerSlashing, proposerSlashing); | ||
| this.emitter.emit(ChainEvent.publishProposerSlashing, proposerSlashing); | ||
| this.metrics?.opPool.proposerSlashingsProduced.inc(); | ||
| this.logger.info("Produced proposer slashing from observed equivocation", {slot: blockSlot, proposerIndex}); |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could consider using verbose here, but this is a really rare event anyways
nflaig
commented
Aug 7, 2026
Co-authored-by: Nico Flaig <nflaig@protonmail.com>
nflaig
commented
Aug 7, 2026
wemeetagain
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2026
matthewkeil
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2026
matthewkeil
enabled auto-merge (squash)
August 7, 2026 15:05
nflaig
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2026
) Follow-up to #9787 that adds a debug log when proposer slashing production is skipped because a slashing for the proposer is already known Without this the skip is silent and it is not possible to tell from logs whether a node observed an equivocation and lost the production race to another node or never detected it at all
twoeths
reviewed
Aug 10, 2026
| return; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| this.producingProposerSlashing.add(proposerIndex); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would be great to log header roots here
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
twoeths
reviewed
Aug 10, 2026
| // Only produce a slashing while importing the block. A block that is verified before it is published | ||
| // must not be treated as equivocation evidence since it may never be seen by the network | ||
| if (opts.verifyOnly !== true && this.seenBlockProposers.isEquivocating(slot, proposerIndex)) { | ||
| this.processProposerEquivocation(slot, proposerIndex); |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wrap in callInNextEventLoop()?
this feels like a follow up task, not the main thing of this verifyBlock flow
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah this might be good, I don't think it's a lot of work to create the slashing but it doesn't need to be produced timely at all, ideally the next proposer receives it in-time but that should be the case most of the time, wrapped inside of callInNextEventLoop() in #9795
twoeths
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2026
Follow-up to #9757 and #9787 based on @twoeths' comments - remove `skipVerifyBlockSignatures` and always verify block signatures - reuse the block input root when recording observed proposals - defer proposer slashing production to the next event loop - log both conflicting block header roots - clarify the equivocation root-count constant name
Member
|
馃帀 This PR is included in v1.46.0 馃帀 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #9757 that produces proposer slashings from observed proposer equivocations
Verified on glamsterdam-devnet-7, a slashing was produced and broadcast 137ms after an adversarial equivocation was published and the validator got slashed