How we created a research fast VM for ZKsync
For the past few weeks we have been working on a reimplementation of ZKsync's (out of circuit) EraVM. The goal is to improve on its current performance and explore the possibility of adding parallel execution through BlockSTM. For that, we first had to make a deep dive into how the EraVM works and how it differs from the EVM.
We want to thank Anthony Rose and the Matter Labs team for all their help on this project, especially their new fastVM implementation which we used a lot as a reference.
You can follow our progress on our EraVM repository.
Development Process
It's important to state our methodology: even though the main goal here is improving performance, our goal starting out is different: we want a simple implementation working.
We do not care about benchmarks at first. We know our initial implementation will be slow, but that's not the point: the point is to get something simple working to understand all the moving parts. Only after that's in place we shift our focus to benchmarks and performance.
When we started out we knew very little about the EraVM. We knew it was different from the EVM, and had indirectly used zksolc to compile and deploy contracts to the network, but had not looked much into the underlyings of it.
The first thing we did to get into a working flow was to inspect the VM's bytecode. We compiled simple contracts into EraVM assembly and started getting familiar with it. The goal when starting out on an unfamiliar VM is to setup a simple fetch->decode->execute loop that looks something like this:
fn run(
vm: VM,
) {
loop {
let opcode = vm.get_opcode(&opcode_table)?;
match opcode {
Opcode::Add => todo!(),
Opcode::Sub => todo!(),
Opcode::Jump => todo!(),
Opcode::Mul => todo!(),
Opcode::Div => todo!(),
... => ...
}
vm.pc += 1;
}
...
}
and then progressively implement all the opcodes. When we started looking at the assembly generated on contracts we realized the EraVM was a lot more complex than the EVM in terms of opcodes; fortunately, Matter Labs has a very good primer on them and a full formal specification.
After reading those and reading their own implementations, we stumbled into their own repo defining all the VM opcodes, and from there we could setup a proper loop like the above.
With it, we started writing our own simple EraVM assembly programs testing all the different opcodes as we implemented them. Eventually, after getting the basic functionality in place, these simple assembly programs we wrote started becoming insufficient to test complex interactions like contracts calling other contracts, gas management, etc; we needed a proper test suite.
That proper test suite is the era-compiler-tester, a full test suite for the VM written by Matter Labs (technically this is also a test suite for the zksolc compiler itself, but we care about VM testing here). To get a fully working VM, we realized we needed to make these tests pass.
Before going into detail about them, let's do a quick overview of the VM we set to reimplement.
EraVM Overview
ZKsync is a zk-Rollup meant to be EVM compatible. In practice, this can mean a number of different things. For ZKsync, it means that it's compatible at the programming language level; this is done through zksolc, an LLVM based compiler written by Matter Labs that takes any Solidity, Yul or Vyper contract and compiles it down to the EraVM bytecode.
This might seem like full compatibility, but it's not. The EraVM has a completely different architecture than the EVM, and some of these differences cannot be fully abstracted away.
As an example, the following Solidity contract:
contract Test {
function main(uint256 a, uint256 b) external pure returns(uint256 result) {
result = a + b;
}
}
compiles to an EVM assembly that looks like this:
PUSH1 0x80
PUSH1 0x40
MSTORE
CALLVALUE
DUP1
ISZERO
PUSH1 0xE
JUMPI
...
and an EraVM assembly that looks like this:
add 128, r0, r3
st.1 64, r3
and! 1, r2, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_1
add r1, r0, r2
shr.s 96, r2, r2
and @CPI0_0[0], r2, r2
sub.s! 4, r2, r0
jump.lt @.BB0_2
ld r1, r3
...
Clearly these are very different VMs. This requires getting used to these two different architectures when working at the VM level on ZKsync. A lot of operations that are opcodes on the EVM are not on the EraVM.
For instance, the EVM has a returndatacopy opcode, which copies the output data from a previous contract call into memory. On the EraVM there is no such thing; a call to returndatacopy on a Yul contract will compile to a block of code that looks like this:
.BB0_19:
ld.inc r5, r7, r5
st.1.inc r6, r7, r6
sub! r6, r4, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_19
We omitted some context, but this is essentially just a loop that will continously load (ld) a word from the called contract's memory and then store it (st) on the caller contract's memory, then conditionally jump back (jump.ne) to the loop if the copying is not done yet (i.e. if the sub! instruction does not yield zero).
This is just one example: most complex EVM opcodes work in in a similar fashion on the EraVM.
Era Compiler Test suite
There are millions of tests on the era-compiler-tester repo, but they all follow the same structure. Each test is a Solidity, Yul or Vyper contract that is compiled with zksolc and run with certain inputs, in turn expecting certain outputs. As an example, the default.sol test looks like this:
//! { "cases": [ {
//! "name": "first",
//! "inputs": [
//! {
//! "method": "first",
//! "calldata": [
//! ]
//! }
//! ],
//! "expected": [
//! "42"
//! ]
//! }, {
//! "name": "second",
//! "inputs": [
//! {
//! "method": "second",
//! "calldata": [
//! ]
//! }
//! ],
//! "expected": [
//! "99"
//! ]
//! } ] }
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity >=0.4.16;
contract Test {
function first() public pure returns(uint64) {
uint64 result = 42;
return result;
}
function second() public pure returns(uint256) {
uint256 result = 99;
return result;
}
}
The comment above it specifies what the test should run and what it expects. In this case, there are two tests, which should run the methods first and second and then get 42 and 99 as a result respectively. Most tests have a lot of comments specifying different runs, testing different functions with different inputs/outputs and so on.
Deep dive into a ZKsync Era contract
Let's compile the default.sol program above and see what it's doing under the hood. Running
zksolc default.sol --asm -o default --optimization 3 --overwrite
will place a default.zasm file under the default directory. This is the EraVM assembly for the contract:
.text
.file "default.sol:Test"
.globl __entry
__entry:
.func_begin0:
add 128, r0, r3
st.1 64, r3
and! 1, r2, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_1
add r1, r0, r2
and! @CPI0_1[0], r2, r0
jump.eq @.BB0_2
ld r1, r1
shr.s 224, r1, r1
sub.s! @CPI0_2[0], r1, r0
jump.eq @.BB0_10
sub.s! @CPI0_3[0], r1, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
context.get_context_u128 r1
sub! r1, r0, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
add 42, r0, r1
st.1 128, r1
add @CPI0_4[0], r0, r1
ret.ok.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_RETURN
.BB0_1:
context.get_context_u128 r1
sub! r1, r0, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
add 32, r0, r1
st.2 256, r1
st.2 288, r0
add @CPI0_0[0], r0, r1
ret.ok.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_RETURN
.BB0_10:
context.get_context_u128 r1
sub! r1, r0, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
add 99, r0, r1
st.1 128, r1
add @CPI0_4[0], r0, r1
ret.ok.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_RETURN
.BB0_2:
add r0, r0, r1
ret.revert.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_REVERT
.func_end0:
.note.GNU-stack
.rodata
CPI0_0:
.cell 53919893334301279589334030174039261352344891250716429051063678533632
CPI0_1:
.cell 340282366604025813406317257057592410112
CPI0_2:
.cell 1519042605
CPI0_3:
.cell 1039457780
CPI0_4:
.cell 2535301202817642044428229017600
A few things you need to know about the EraVM before diving in:
- The native word is a
U256(256 bit unsigned integer). - There are 16 registers,
r0throughr15.r0is the zero register: writing to it does nothing, reading from it yields zero.r1is used as a pointer to the calldata (i.e. function arguments) when calling other contracts, and to the returndata when returning from calls.r2usually stores information about whether the current call is a constructor call, a regular function call, or a system call (a call to a system contract with special privileges).
- Every contract call gets its own stack and heap memory.
Step by Step
Let's do a step by step overview of this assembly.
When someone calls this contract, execution always begins from the __entry symbol. The first two instructions are doing some setup we don't care much for, storing the value 128 onto the r3 register:
add 128, r0, r3
st.1 64, r3
In more detail, add 128, r0, r3 adds 128 to the value in r0 and stores it in r3. Because r0 is the zero register, this is essentially storing 128 in r3 (this the way movs to registers are always done in the EraVM).st.1 then stores the value in r3 to memory address 64 (if you're wondering what the 1 is in st.1, it's the type of heap to use; the EraVM has both a regular and a special auxiliary heap).
Then, there's a check on the r2 register and a conditional jump:
and! 1, r2, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_1
The and! instruction is doing a bitwise and between 1 and r2, storing it to r0, then setting the zero flag accordingly. This is storing to r0 because we don't care about the result. We are just checking whether the r2 register is 1 or not. If it is, then this is a constructor call, and we should jump to block @.BB0_1, which contains the constructor logic; if it's not we should continue.
If the call is not a constructor call, the code will then do
add r1, r0, r2
and! @CPI0_1[0], r2, r0
jump.eq @.BB0_2
This puts the calldata pointer that's in r1 into r2, then does an and instruction and a conditional jump to make sure it's not pointing to an invalid address. If it is, then execution jumps to block @.BB0_2, which contains the revert logic:
.BB0_2:
add r0, r0, r1
ret.revert.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_REVERT
If the address is valid, the code follows like this:
ld r1, r1
shr.s 224, r1, r1
This is loading the first 32 bytes the calldata pointer points to through an ld instruction, storing it in r1, then shifting it 224 bits to the right to keep only its first 4 bytes (256- 224 = 32 bits = 4 bytes).
These 4 bytes are the function selector of this contract call. This default.sol contract has two functions
function first() public pure returns(uint64)
function second() public pure returns(uint256)
The selector for the first one is 0x3df4ddf4, while for the second one it's 0x5a8ac02d (you can check them yourself here). If you convert these values to decimal, you'll see these are the values for the labels CPI0_3 and CPI0_2 respectively in the assembly. That's why the code does a sub.s! instruction, comparing the result of this selector in r1 against CPIO_2
sub.s! @CPI0_2[0], r1, r0
jump.eq @.BB0_10
If the value matches, execution jumps to block .BB0_10, containing the logic for the second function that just returns 99:
.BB0_10:
context.get_context_u128 r1
sub! r1, r0, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
add 99, r0, r1
st.1 128, r1
add @CPI0_4[0], r0, r1
ret.ok.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_RETURN
You can see the add 99, r0, r1 followed by st.1 128, r1 to store the return value into memory. The code before it is just checking whether the caller passed any wei using the context.get_context_u128 r1 instruction, and reverting if so (this function is not payable).
If the selector did not match CPI0_2 (the selector for the second() function), then the code checks against the first() selector (label CPIO_3):
sub.s! @CPI0_3[0], r1, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
In this case, because it's the last valid function selector for the contract, if the value does not match we just go to the revert block BB0_2. If it does match we continue with the logic for the first() function, doing the same but returning 42 instead of 99:
context.get_context_u128 r1
sub! r1, r0, r0
jump.ne @.BB0_2
add 42, r0, r1
st.1 128, r1
add @CPI0_4[0], r0, r1
ret.ok.to_label r1, @DEFAULT_FAR_RETURN
And that's it, that's the entire EraVM assembly code for this contract. To summarize, the code is organized as follows:
- The
__entryblock is the entrypoint for any call to this contract. - Block
BB0_1contains the contract's constructor logic (the default one in this case, since we didn't write one ourselves). - Block
BB0_10contains the code for thesecond()function. - Block
BB0_2just has the revert logic. - When someone calls this contract the code will do, in order, the following:
- Check whether this is a constructor call and jump to
BB0_10if so. - Read from the
calldatapointer, revert by jumping toBB0_2if the address it points to is invalid. - Get the first 4 bytes of calldata to obtain the function selector.
- Check the provided selector against the
second()selector stored inCPI0_2. Jump to blockBB0_10if it matches. - Check whether the selector matches
first(). Revert if it does not, run the code forfirst()otherwise.
- Check whether this is a constructor call and jump to
Current status and next steps
We are working on the last stretch of fixes to make all tests pass. Once that's done, our focus will shift entirely to benchmarking the VM and start making optimizations. In anticipation for this, we started integrating with the ZKsync Era benchmarks. This work requires integrating the VM with the bootloader, the contract in ZKsync that executes blocks (essentially the network's main execution entrypoint).
This bootloader integration will also allow us to get our VM plugged into a ZKsync operator and start playing around with optimistic parallel execution ideas. Actually, getting parallel execution will probably involve modifying the bootloader or getting rid of it altogether when executing on the operator, but that's a topic for another post.
