remove xfam + tdAttributes bitmasking logic, and add upgrade script +… #53
+378
−105
Conversation
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
… documentation for v1 block builder policy migration This PR introduces the V1BlockBuilderPolicy contract and corresponding upgrade script to migrate from the initial policy version that contained buggy xFAM and td attributes bit masking logic. The upgrade provides a cleaner implementation without bit masking, following the bug fix completed in the previous commit. Documentation is added to the README explaining the upgrade rationale and deployment commands.
Melvillian
added a commit
to Melvillian/op-rbuilder
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2025
To account for a bug in the xfam and tdAttributes bitmasking logic, we changed the way the workload ID is calculated in the BlockBuilderPolicy. That PR is here: flashbots/flashtestations#53 This means the workload ID calculation needs to change in any upstream services, which includes op-rbuilder. I've made the same change that I made in the solidity contract here in the attestation.rs logic where op-rbuilder calculates the workload ID. The tests have been updated to use the new correct workload ID, which I obtained by running the BlockBuilderPolicy:workloadIdForTDRegistration function on the same TEE registration that is used in the tests.
3 tasks
avalonche
pushed a commit
to flashbots/op-rbuilder
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2025
To account for a bug in the xfam and tdAttributes bitmasking logic, we changed the way the workload ID is calculated in the BlockBuilderPolicy. That PR is here: flashbots/flashtestations#53 This means the workload ID calculation needs to change in any upstream services, which includes op-rbuilder. I've made the same change that I made in the solidity contract here in the attestation.rs logic where op-rbuilder calculates the workload ID. The tests have been updated to use the new correct workload ID, which I obtained by running the BlockBuilderPolicy:workloadIdForTDRegistration function on the same TEE registration that is used in the tests.
Ruteri
approved these changes
Nov 24, 2025
Melvillian
added a commit
to Uniswap/sdks
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 24, 2025
…moving bitmasking operations This commit removes the bitwise preprocessing operations (XOR, AND, NOT, OR) from the workload ID computation to align with the updated BlockBuilderPolicy contract implementation. Previously, the workload ID was computed by applying bitmasks to xFAM and tdAttributes values before hashing, but the upstream contract has simplified this logic to directly hash the raw register values. You can find the original change here: flashbots/flashtestations#53
Melvillian
added a commit
to Uniswap/sdks
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…moving bitmasking operations This commit removes the bitwise preprocessing operations (XOR, AND, NOT, OR) from the workload ID computation to align with the updated BlockBuilderPolicy contract implementation. Previously, the workload ID was computed by applying bitmasks to xFAM and tdAttributes values before hashing, but the upstream contract has simplified this logic to directly hash the raw register values. You can find the original change here: flashbots/flashtestations#53
Melvillian
added a commit
to Uniswap/sdks
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 25, 2025
…moving bitmasking operations This commit removes the bitwise preprocessing operations (XOR, AND, NOT, OR) from the workload ID computation to align with the updated BlockBuilderPolicy contract implementation. Previously, the workload ID was computed by applying bitmasks to xFAM and tdAttributes values before hashing, but the upstream contract has simplified this logic to directly hash the raw register values. You can find the original change here: flashbots/flashtestations#53
Melvillian
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2025
This commit includes the broadcasted contract addresses (both proxy and implementation contracts) that resulted from adding the change made in #53
Melvillian
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
deploy or update BlockBuilderPolicy contract using PR #53's changes
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.
… documentation for v1 block builder policy migration
This PR introduces the V1BlockBuilderPolicy contract and corresponding upgrade script to migrate from the initial policy version that contained buggy xFAM and td attributes bit masking logic. The upgrade provides a cleaner implementation without bit masking, following the bug fix completed in the previous commit. Documentation is added to the README explaining the upgrade rationale and deployment commands.