4

After upgrading one of Pop template's to polkadot-v1.10.0 I noticed some unexpected logs. Even though the parachain include blocks, emits the expected events from the executed extrinsics and so on.

The logs show the following:

2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 🙌 Starting consensus session on top of parent 0xf03169103f7fa5281ad9dd9a994e5e8ffe948e1859e1acbfc16bbc888d259b17    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 🎁 Prepared block for proposing at 1 (2 ms) [hash: 0x08c6370abf09fe95bb9d8d946e1b80eb63d53be0ff7860c796bb55b185dc1f8e; parent_hash: 0xf031…9b17; extrinsics (2): [0x46e4…d5a6, 0xb93b…be31]    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 🔖 Pre-sealed block for proposal at 1. Hash now 0x0ce8e5cf3b8f90a31bf8c1fc059b9969e879c893590378d623941928030146d6, previously 0x08c6370abf09fe95bb9d8d946e1b80eb63d53be0ff7860c796bb55b185dc1f8e.
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] ✨ Imported #1 (0x0ce8…46d6)    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] PoV size { header: 0.216796875kb, extrinsics: 3.2431640625kb, storage_proof: 1.7265625kb }
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] Compressed PoV size: 4.4853515625kb
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 🙌 Starting consensus session on top of parent 0x0ce8e5cf3b8f90a31bf8c1fc059b9969e879c893590378d623941928030146d6    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] panicked at /home/alemart/.cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/cumulus-pallet-parachain-system-0.11.0/src/lib.rs:139:13:
Relay chain block number needs to strictly increase between Parachain blocks!    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 1 storage transactions are left open by the runtime. Those will be rolled back.    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 1 storage transactions are left open by the runtime. Those will be rolled back.    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] ❗ Inherent extrinsic returned unexpected error: Error at calling runtime api: Execution failed: Execution aborted due to trap: wasm trap: wasm `unreachable` instruction executed
WASM backtrace:
error while executing at wasm backtrace:
    0: 0x3e0a8c - <unknown>!rust_begin_unwind
    1: 0x10c29 - <unknown>!core::panicking::panic_fmt::h1549e5ec3a801cca
    2: 0x2d1f28 - <unknown>!frame_support::storage::transactional::with_transaction::h7422fe844890f9e6
    3: 0x2934fe - <unknown>!<cumulus_pallet_parachain_system::pallet::Call<T> as frame_support::traits::dispatch::UnfilteredDispatchable>::dispatch_bypass_filter::{{closure}}::h1e5f20a533a38241
    4: 0x2a0931 - <unknown>!frame_support::dispatch_context::run_in_context::hb92f5b171018d329
    5: 0x229e96 - <unknown>!<parachain_template_runtime::RuntimeCall as frame_support::traits::dispatch::UnfilteredDispatchable>::dispatch_bypass_filter::he4c84498b2d6727d
    6: 0x22122c - <unknown>!<parachain_template_runtime::RuntimeCall as sp_runtime::traits::Dispatchable>::dispatch::hfe949263cd1fc032
    7: 0x3aad0f - <unknown>!<sp_runtime::generic::checked_extrinsic::CheckedExtrinsic<AccountId,Call,Extra> as sp_runtime::traits::Applyable>::apply::he6f7ff7065c99010
    8: 0x2b2109 - <unknown>!frame_executive::Executive<System,Block,Context,UnsignedValidator,AllPalletsWithSystem,COnRuntimeUpgrade>::apply_extrinsic::hd1cbeb8d7f91525b
    9: 0x224ddb - <unknown>!BlockBuilder_apply_extrinsic. Dropping.    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] panicked at /home/alemart/.cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-6f17d22bba15001f/cumulus-pallet-parachain-system-0.11.0/src/lib.rs:266:18:
set_validation_data inherent needs to be present in every block!    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] err=Error { inner: Proposing

Caused by:
    0: Error at calling runtime api: Execution failed: Execution aborted due to trap: wasm trap: wasm `unreachable` instruction executed
       WASM backtrace:
       error while executing at wasm backtrace:
           0: 0x3e0a8c - <unknown>!rust_begin_unwind
           1: 0x10c29 - <unknown>!core::panicking::panic_fmt::h1549e5ec3a801cca
           2: 0x10b6f - <unknown>!core::option::expect_failed::h1123e1cae37cdc9c
           3: 0x1faff5 - <unknown>!<cumulus_pallet_parachain_system::pallet::Pallet<T> as frame_support::traits::hooks::OnFinalize<<<<T as frame_system::pallet::Config>::Block as sp_runtime::traits::HeaderProvider>::HeaderT as sp_runtime::traits::Header>::Number>>::on_finalize::h4c810fdbfd3c16cb
           4: 0x284396 - <unknown>!<(TupleElement0,TupleElement1,TupleElement2,TupleElement3,TupleElement4,TupleElement5,TupleElement6,TupleElement7,TupleElement8,TupleElement9,TupleElement10,TupleElement11,TupleElement12,TupleElement13,TupleElement14,TupleElement15,TupleElement16) as frame_support::traits::hooks::OnFinalize<BlockNumber>>::on_finalize::hf185b1ca06e7e2e5
           5: 0x2b34b5 - <unknown>!frame_executive::Executive<System,Block,Context,UnsignedValidator,AllPalletsWithSystem,COnRuntimeUpgrade>::finalize_block::hce3695f2cc028071
           6: 0x224e95 - <unknown>!BlockBuilder_finalize_block
    1: Execution failed: Execution aborted due to trap: wasm trap: wasm `unreachable` instruction executed
       WASM backtrace:
       error while executing at wasm backtrace:
           0: 0x3e0a8c - <unknown>!rust_begin_unwind
           1: 0x10c29 - <unknown>!core::panicking::panic_fmt::h1549e5ec3a801cca
           2: 0x10b6f - <unknown>!core::option::expect_failed::h1123e1cae37cdc9c
           3: 0x1faff5 - <unknown>!<cumulus_pallet_parachain_system::pallet::Pallet<T> as frame_support::traits::hooks::OnFinalize<<<<T as frame_system::pallet::Config>::Block as sp_runtime::traits::HeaderProvider>::HeaderT as sp_runtime::traits::Header>::Number>>::on_finalize::h4c810fdbfd3c16cb
           4: 0x284396 - <unknown>!<(TupleElement0,TupleElement1,TupleElement2,TupleElement3,TupleElement4,TupleElement5,TupleElement6,TupleElement7,TupleElement8,TupleElement9,TupleElement10,TupleElement11,TupleElement12,TupleElement13,TupleElement14,TupleElement15,TupleElement16) as frame_support::traits::hooks::OnFinalize<BlockNumber>>::on_finalize::hf185b1ca06e7e2e5
           5: 0x2b34b5 - <unknown>!frame_executive::Executive<System,Block,Context,UnsignedValidator,AllPalletsWithSystem,COnRuntimeUpgrade>::finalize_block::hce3695f2cc028071
           6: 0x224e95 - <unknown>!BlockBuilder_finalize_block }
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Relaychain] 💤 Idle (3 peers), best: #11 (0xa9d4…e88c), finalized #8 (0x583a…41d0), ⬇ 2.1kiB/s ⬆ 2.9kiB/s    
2024-05-23 11:06:42 [Parachain] 💤 Idle (0 peers), best: #1 (0x0ce8…46d6), finalized #0 (0xf031…9b17), ⬇ 0.2kiB/s ⬆ 0.2kiB/s    
2024-05-23 11:06:47 [Relaychain] 💤 Idle (3 peers), best: #11 (0xa9d4…e88c), finalized #8 (0x583a…41d0), ⬇ 0.9kiB/s ⬆ 0.9kiB/s    
2024-05-23 11:06:47 [Parachain] 💤 Idle (0 peers), best: #1 (0x0ce8…46d6), finalized #0 (0xf031…9b17), ⬇ 0.3kiB/s ⬆ 0.2kiB/s

I thought about maybe polkadot-v1.10.1 patch being something that could help with this, so I bumped the deps to polkadot-v1.11.0, which includes the patch. But I still can see the logs have the same panics.

Any comment is appreciated. I wonder if this is somehow related to other issues we have seen regarding async backing. As the logs are certainly similar, but not the same.


Solution: It seems we had a regression in our template and just reverting the offending change was enough to get back to the expected behavior: https://github.com/r0gue-io/base-parachain/pull/25


Context

1 Answer 1

2
+50

Looking at your, you changed CheckAssociatedRelayNumber from:

type CheckAssociatedRelayNumber = RelayNumberMonotonicallyIncreases;

Here.

To:

type CheckAssociatedRelayNumber = RelayNumberStrictlyIncreases;

Here.

This changed combined with the fact that you are using the lookahead collator and async backing, you run into this error message. The lookahead collator is building multiple parachain blocks on the same relay chain block. This leads to this issue, as the relay chain number is not strictly increasing between parachain blocks. Reverting this change will fix it.

2
  • Thanks for having a look. I'll do the changes and report back. Commented Jun 7 at 8:40
  • Can confirm that this solves the problem! I am kinda happy that my reading of the problem was in the right direction. Commented Jun 7 at 9:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.