I've recently seen two major objections to EIP-2315.

It did not provide security guarantees that it was not designed to provide.

The proposal we had previously agreed to specified a simple two-stack mechanism for returning from jumping to and returning from subroutines. No more, no less. This mechanism was first proposed for EIP-615 in 2016, has been a standard approach since 1970, and should not be controversial by now.

The current Draft shows how to provide security guarantees. Essentially: deprecate dynamic uses of JUMP and JUMPI, and use RETURNSUB rather than a dynamic jump to return from subroutines. Precise rules are stated and an algorithm given for enforcing them. When and how to start enforcing those rules can be a separate discussion.

EIP-615 proposed immediate arguments to JUMPSUB, which are not backwards-compatible. EIP-2315 requires instead that jump destinations be pushed as constants, and thus remains backwards-compatible.

It did not provide evidence of potential users.

Such evidence would not be appropriate in a technical specification.

At this point I can say that over the years that I have been working on subroutines for the EVM many people have expressed support for my proposals, especially people doing various forms of static analysis. I cannot make a list, but it goes well beyond two compiler teams. EIP-2315 has been publicly announced for long enough that there are no doubt others waiting to use it.

So far as compiler teams being users, if we do deprecate static jumps then all compiler teams will require another mechanism for returning from subroutines. EIP-2315 provides a good one.

EIP-2315 #274

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions