core/state: touch BAL on statedb cache#34684
Merged
jwasinger merged 1 commit intoethereum:bal-devnet-3from Apr 8, 2026
Merged
Conversation
s1na
changed the title
jwasinger
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2026
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The BAL reader tracker captures access list reads at the reader level. When statedb has an account cached the BAL tracker is not informed of the access. This is ok during the lifetime of a transaction because you only need to record the access the first time. It is also ok during the lifetime of a block because BAL reads are block-level (same as statedb caches).
Where I think the issue can rise is in the miner. Namely when building a block, if the miner picks up a tx which fails, it drops it and picks up another tx to include. There might be some edge case here where the failed tx which is not included poisons the cache and a future block which is included omits an account because it wasn't aware of the access.