[Work in Progress] add AccountPermission #5164

yinyiqian1 · 2024-10-25T19:01:42Z

spec:
XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#217
XRPLF/XRPL-Standards#218

This PR includes the following changes:

Added AccountPermissionSet transaction.
to enable an account(delegating account) delegate some permissions to another account(delegated account), so that the delegated account can send transactions on behalf of the delegating account.
Added Account_Permission ledger object
The AccountPermissionSet transaction will create AccountPermission ledger object, with keylet(delegating account, delegated account)
Added Onbehalf of common field.
Permission has two types:
a. transaction level permission
b. granular permission which will be part of a transaction

more details:

introduced account and isDelegated in PreflightContext, PreclaimContext and ApplyContext. The account is the account which is the transaction being operated on.
transactor's member account_ is updated to the account which is the transaction being operated on.
a set of Granular Permissions gpSet is added to ApplyContext. It contains the granular permissions enabled for that transaction. But if the transaction is fully delegated, then even there are granular permissions related to that transaction, the gpSet will be cleared up. To be more specific:
a. isDelegated=true && gpSet not empty: only granular permissions delegated to the transaction
b. isDelegated=true && gpSet is empty: the transaction is fully delegated
only the granular permissions listed in Permissions.cpp are supported, so the unauthorized granular operations and the other parts under these transactions are prohibited under granular permission mode.

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

Bug fix (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)
Refactor (non-breaking change that only restructures code)
Performance (increase or change in throughput and/or latency)
Tests (you added tests for code that already exists, or your new feature included in this PR)
Documentation update
Chore (no impact to binary, e.g. .gitignore, formatting, dropping support for older tooling)
Release

API Impact

Public API: New feature (new methods and/or new fields)
Public API: Breaking change (in general, breaking changes should only impact the next api_version)
libxrpl change (any change that may affect libxrpl or dependents of libxrpl)
Peer protocol change (must be backward compatible or bump the peer protocol version)

codecov · 2024-10-25T19:40:24Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 48.30287% with 198 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.6%. Comparing base (838978b) to head (372cc5c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp	0.0%	59 Missing ⚠️
src/libxrpl/protocol/Permissions.cpp	0.0%	34 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Transactor.cpp	8.8%	31 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/SetTrust.cpp	22.7%	17 Missing ⚠️
src/libxrpl/protocol/STParsedJSON.cpp	23.5%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Payment.cpp	20.0%	12 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/SetAccount.cpp	59.1%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/libxrpl/protocol/Indexes.cpp	0.0%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/DeleteAccount.cpp	28.6%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/MPTokenIssuanceSet.cpp	58.3%	5 Missing ⚠️
... and 3 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop   #5164     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage     77.9%   77.6%   -0.3%     
=========================================
  Files          782     785      +3     
  Lines        66621   66847    +226     
  Branches      8161    8277    +116     
=========================================
- Hits         51902   51897      -5     
- Misses       14719   14950    +231

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
include/xrpl/protocol/Feature.h	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/Indexes.h	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/detail/ledger_entries.macro	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
include/xrpl/protocol/detail/transactions.macro	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/libxrpl/protocol/InnerObjectFormats.cpp	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/libxrpl/protocol/TxFormats.cpp	`100.0% <ø> (ø)`
src/xrpld/app/tx/applySteps.h	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMBid.cpp	`90.4% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMClawback.cpp	`100.0% <100.0%> (ø)`
src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AMMCreate.cpp	`90.5% <100.0%> (ø)`
... and 45 more

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

---- 🚨 Try these New Features:

Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

shawnxie999 · 2024-10-29T13:57:01Z

include/xrpl/protocol/Permissions.h

+    gpMPTokenIssuanceUnlock = 65548,
+};
+
+class Permission


should probably delete copy and copy assignment constructors

does this still needs to be done?

shawnxie999 · 2024-10-29T13:57:45Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp

+{
+    auto const sleOwner = ctx_.view().peek(keylet::account(account_));
+    if (!sleOwner)
+        return {tefINTERNAL};  // LCOV_EXCL_LINE


Suggested change

return {tefINTERNAL}; // LCOV_EXCL_LINE

return tecINTERNAL; // LCOV_EXCL_LINE

shawnxie999 · 2024-10-29T13:58:12Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp

+        sle = std::make_shared<SLE>(accountPermissionKey);
+        auto const& permissions = ctx_.tx.getFieldArray(sfPermissions);
+        sle->setFieldArray(sfPermissions, permissions);
+        auto page = ctx_.view().dirInsert(


Suggested change

auto page = ctx_.view().dirInsert(

auto const page = ctx_.view().dirInsert(

shawnxie999 · 2024-10-29T14:00:27Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp

+        keylet::accountPermission(account_, ctx_.tx[sfAuthorize]);
+
+    auto sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);
+    if (!sle)


can be refactored like

auto sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey); if (sle) { auto const& permissions = ctx_.tx.getFieldArray(sfPermissions); sle->setFieldArray(sfPermissions, permissions); ctx_.view().update(sle); return tesSUCCESS; } STAmount const reserve{ctx_.view().fees().accountReserve( sleOwner->getFieldU32(sfOwnerCount) + 1)}; ...

shawnxie999 · 2024-10-29T14:04:25Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp

+    auto const accountPermissionKey =
+        keylet::accountPermission(account_, ctx_.tx[sfAuthorize]);
+
+    auto sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);


Suggested change

auto sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);

auto const sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);

need to update sle later (sle = std::make_shared<SLE>(accountPermissionKey);). can not be const.

shawnxie999 · 2024-11-18T19:54:42Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/applySteps.cpp

    try
    {
-        return {pfctx, invoke_preflight(pfctx)};
+        // if AccountPermission is not enabled, do not use OnBehalfOf field.
+        if (!rules.enabled(featureAccountPermission) && tx[~sfOnBehalfOf])


so what's the behavior when someone submits a tx with sfOnBehalfOf but not enabled the amendment? what error code does it return? To me, i feel we should not be throwing a runtime error, because it's a completely acceptable input. pls consider performing this check in the Transactor::preflight1 instead and return an code like temDISABLED

gregtatcam · 2024-11-19T13:50:50Z

PR description should be added with a link to technical specifications if applicable.

yinyiqian1 · 2024-11-19T14:57:39Z

PR description should be added with a link to technical specifications if applicable.

just added

yinyiqian1 · 2024-11-19T15:49:11Z

FYI: unit test failures are transient, which have passed locally. "ERR:Env Env::close() failed: no response from server"

gregtatcam

I took a pass and left a few comments.
My big concern is how sfAccount is obfuscated by sfOnBehalfOf. sfAccount pretty much should never be used in the transactors with some exceptions. It's easy to miss these kind of errors where sfAccount is used instead of the account included in the context.

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T15:28:38Z

include/xrpl/protocol/detail/ledger_entries.macro

+LEDGER_ENTRY(ltACCOUNT_PERMISSION, 0x0082, AccountPermission, ({
+    {sfAccount,              soeREQUIRED},
+    {sfAuthorize,            soeREQUIRED},
+    {sfPermissions,          soeREQUIRED},


Does it make sense to make this optional since it could be empty?

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T15:29:44Z

include/xrpl/protocol/detail/transactions.macro

+/** This transaction type delegates authorized account specified permissions */
+TRANSACTION(ttACCOUNT_PERMISSION_SET, 61, AccountPermissionSet, ({
+    {sfAuthorize, soeREQUIRED},
+    {sfPermissions, soeREQUIRED},


Does it make sense to make it optional since it could be empty?

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T15:36:46Z

include/xrpl/protocol/Permissions.h

+ */
+
+enum GranularPermissionType : std::uint32_t {
+    gpTrustlineAuthorize = 65537,


Is gp prefix necessary? Can we just have TrustlineAuthorize, etc?

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T15:46:13Z

src/libxrpl/protocol/Indexes.cpp

@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ enum class LedgerNameSpace : std::uint16_t {
    MPTOKEN_ISSUANCE = '~',
    MPTOKEN = 't',
    CREDENTIAL = 'D',
+    ACCOUNT_PERMISSION = 'P',


This value is already used by DEPOSIT_PREAUTH_CREDENTIALS

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T16:47:59Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/AccountPermissionSet.cpp

+    {
+        auto permissionObj = dynamic_cast<STObject const*>(&permission);
+
+        if (!permissionObj || (permissionObj->getFName() != sfPermission))


Is this needed? If the array is invalid it should fail in the array parsing. And if the name is not Permission then it should fail also before it gets to the transactor. Should have a unit-test fo this.

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T20:21:44Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Clawback.cpp

@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ preclaimHelper<MPTIssue>(
 TER
 Clawback::preclaim(PreclaimContext const& ctx)
 {
-    AccountID const issuer = ctx.tx[sfAccount];
+    AccountID const issuer = ctx.account;


Should be const&. Please check everywhere where an alias variable is used for ctx.account. It should be AccountID const&.

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T20:29:18Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/MPTokenIssuanceSet.cpp

+    if (ctx_.isDelegated && !ctx_.gpSet.empty())
+    {
+        // if gpSet is not empty, granular delegation is happening.
+        if (bLock && ctx_.gpSet.find(gpMPTokenIssuanceLock) == ctx_.gpSet.end())


Can simplify here and below.

if (bLock && !ctx.gpSet.contains(gpMPTokenIssuanceLock))

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T20:33:26Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/Payment.cpp

+        auto const amountIssue = dstAmount.issue();
+        if (isXRP(amountIssue))
+            return tecNO_AUTH;
+        if (amountIssue.account == account_ &&


Can simplify here and below:

if (amountIssue.account == account_ && ctx_.gpSet.contains(gpPaymentMint))

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T20:34:48Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/SetTrust.cpp

+        if (bSetNoRipple || bClearNoRipple || bQualityIn || bQualityOut)
+            return terNO_AUTH;
+        if (bSetAuth &&
+            ctx_.gpSet.find(gpTrustlineAuthorize) == ctx_.gpSet.end())


Can simplify here and below:

if (bSetAuth && !ctx_.gpSet.contains(gpTrustlineAuthorize))

gregtatcam · 2024-11-21T20:49:24Z

src/xrpld/app/tx/detail/InvariantCheck.cpp

@@ -458,6 +458,7 @@ LedgerEntryTypesMatch::visitEntry(
        switch (after->getType())
        {
            case ltACCOUNT_ROOT:
+            case ltACCOUNT_PERMISSION:


I can't leave a comment on unchanged lines so commenting here for ValidClawback::finalize:924, which is this line:

AccountID const issuer = tx.getAccountID(sfAccount);

The issuer in this case could be either sfAccount or sfOnBehalfOf, right?

This is missed out. I'll also check all the other similar places which is missed out.

@gregtatcam
I also need to make change to AcceptedLedgerTx.cpp, LedgerToJson.cpp, and NetworkOPs.cpp, because they also check the account id when the transaction type is ttOFFER_CREATE. I'm working on this as well

yinyiqian1 marked this pull request as draft October 25, 2024 19:01

yinyiqian1 force-pushed the account_permissions branch from 81fcb3f to 34c5065 Compare October 25, 2024 19:20

yinyiqian1 force-pushed the account_permissions branch from 34c5065 to 2e9b7a6 Compare October 25, 2024 19:47

yinyiqian1 requested review from gregtatcam and shawnxie999 October 25, 2024 20:02

shawnxie999 reviewed Oct 29, 2024

View reviewed changes

yinyiqian1 force-pushed the account_permissions branch 3 times, most recently from 6101542 to bd7150e Compare November 5, 2024 21:50

yinyiqian1 force-pushed the account_permissions branch 2 times, most recently from 04cf7ad to 5c1d6a3 Compare November 18, 2024 16:24

Add AccountPermissions

6bbe2ca

yinyiqian1 force-pushed the account_permissions branch from 5c1d6a3 to 6bbe2ca Compare November 18, 2024 19:44

shawnxie999 reviewed Nov 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

update granular permissions

372cc5c

gregtatcam reviewed Nov 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[Work in Progress] add AccountPermission #5164

[Work in Progress] add AccountPermission #5164

yinyiqian1 commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shawnxie999 Oct 29, 2024

shawnxie999 Nov 18, 2024

shawnxie999 Oct 29, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024

shawnxie999 Oct 29, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024

shawnxie999 Oct 29, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024

shawnxie999 Oct 29, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shawnxie999 Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gregtatcam commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

yinyiqian1 commented Nov 19, 2024

yinyiqian1 commented Nov 19, 2024

gregtatcam left a comment

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

gregtatcam Nov 21, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 21, 2024

yinyiqian1 Nov 22, 2024

	return {tefINTERNAL}; // LCOV_EXCL_LINE
	return tecINTERNAL; // LCOV_EXCL_LINE

	auto page = ctx_.view().dirInsert(
	auto const page = ctx_.view().dirInsert(

	auto sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);
	auto const sle = ctx_.view().peek(accountPermissionKey);

[Work in Progress] add AccountPermission #5164

Are you sure you want to change the base?

[Work in Progress] add AccountPermission #5164

Conversation

yinyiqian1 commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

High Level Overview of Change

Context of Change

Type of Change

API Impact

codecov bot commented Oct 25, 2024 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

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

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

shawnxie999 Nov 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

gregtatcam commented Nov 19, 2024 • edited Loading

yinyiqian1 commented Nov 19, 2024

yinyiqian1 commented Nov 19, 2024

gregtatcam 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yinyiqian1 commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Oct 25, 2024 •

edited

Loading

yinyiqian1 Nov 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

shawnxie999 Nov 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

gregtatcam commented Nov 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading