util: validate no leading zeroes7702

[gabrocheleau]

This fixes issue #4057, where validateNoLeadingZeroes rejects [0] (single zero byte) because in strict RLP encoding, 0 should be an empty array []. However, for EIP-7702 authorization lists, chainId=0 (wildcard) and yParity=0 are valid values that may be encoded as 0x00.

• Added a new function validateNoLeadingZeroesAllowZero() in packages/util/src/bytes.ts that allows a single 0x00 byte but still rejects leading zeroes in multi-byte values
• Updated verifyAuthorizationList() in packages/tx/src/capabilities/eip7702.ts to use the new lenient validation for chainId and yParity, while keeping strict validation for r, s, and nonce
• Added tests to verify 0x00 is now accepted for chainId and yParity

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 81.25000% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 75.53%. Comparing base (7eead0b) to head (fb85006).

Additional details and impacted files

Flag	Coverage Δ
block	88.44% <ø> (ø)
blockchain	88.85% <ø> (ø)
common	93.38% <ø> (ø)
evm	62.01% <100.00%> (ø)
mpt	89.78% <ø> (-0.34%)	⬇️
statemanager	78.10% <ø> (ø)
static	91.35% <ø> (ø)
tx	88.02% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
util	84.87% <79.31%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
vm	65.08% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

📦 Bundle Size Analysis

Package	Size (gzip)	Δ
binarytree	30.1 KB	⚪ ±0%
block	45.4 KB	⚪ ±0%
blockchain	52.4 KB	⚪ ±0%
client	181.7 KB	⚪ ±0%
common	44.9 KB	⚪ ±0%
devp2p	76.4 KB	⚪ ±0%
e2store	30.3 KB	⚪ ±0%
ethash	8.4 KB	⚪ ±0%
evm	201.4 KB	🔴 +0.0 KB (+0.01%)
genesis	519.5 KB	⚪ ±0%
mpt	55.1 KB	⚪ ±0%
rlp	7.2 KB	⚪ ±0%
statemanager	57.2 KB	⚪ ±0%
testdata	60.2 KB	⚪ ±0%
tx	87.2 KB	🔴 +0.2 KB (+0.23%)
util	62.5 KB	🔴 +0.7 KB (+1.12%)
vm	61.3 KB	⚪ ±0%
wallet	14.0 KB	⚪ ±0%

_{Generated by bundle-size workflow}

[jochem-brouwer]

This is interesting. I can't find in EIP-7702 what value should be used for 0. Should 0x00 or 0x (empty bytes) be used? Because these are two different values, two different encodings, and thus two different signature.

EDIT: linking this issue #4057

[holgerd77]

Ok, there was already so much discussion around this in the original issue, will leave it to you guys without adding some half-informed opinion. Guess you guys knows that these 0 issues are tricky in general, also in respect to RLP/No-RLP, please also keep the API backwards-compatible.