`DeactivateDelinquent` for Closed Vote Accounts [SIMD-0608] by grod220 · Pull Request #532 · solana-program/stake

grod220 · 2026-09-09T10:07:08Z

Implements SIMD-0608. The DeactivateDelinquent instruction now also accepts stake delegated to a closed vote account, restoring a cleanup path for delegations orphaned in this edge case.

New Behavior

The delinquency condition is satisfied when the delegated vote account:

is not owned by the Vote Program (the normal result of closure) or
is Vote program owned with either a) zero four-byte discriminator, b) all zero data shorter than four bytes, or c) empty data. Only the discriminator space is inspected, so a large zero-filled shell stays within the compute budget.

All other Vote owned data goes through the existing vote-state decoding and five-epoch credit checks.

grod220 · 2026-09-09T10:10:48Z

+/// Deserialize a Vote Program-owned account as [`VoteStateV4`].
+#[cfg(feature = "bincode")]
+pub fn get_vote_state(vote_account_info: &AccountInfo) -> Result<Box<VoteStateV4>, ProgramError> {
+    if *vote_account_info.owner != solana_vote_interface::program::id() {
+        return Err(ProgramError::IncorrectProgramId);
+    }
+
+    let mut vote_state = Box::new(MaybeUninit::uninit());
+    VoteStateV4::deserialize_into_uninit(
+        &vote_account_info.try_borrow_data()?,
+        vote_state.as_mut(),
+        vote_account_info.key,
+    )
+    .map_err(|_| ProgramError::InvalidAccountData)?;
+    let vote_state = unsafe { Box::from_raw(Box::into_raw(vote_state).cast::<VoteStateV4>()) };
+
+    Ok(vote_state)
+}
+


Moved from program/src/processor.rs so helpers here can use it

grod220 · 2026-09-09T10:12:24Z

-        if let StakeStateV2::Stake(meta, mut stake, stake_flags) =
+        let StakeStateV2::Stake(meta, mut stake, stake_flags) =
            get_stake_state(stake_account_info)?
-        {
-            if stake.delegation.voter_pubkey != *delinquent_vote_account_info.key {
-                return Err(StakeError::VoteAddressMismatch.into());
-            }
+        else {
+            return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
+        };

-            // Deactivate the stake account if its delegated vote account has never voted or
-            // has not voted in the last
-            // `MINIMUM_DELINQUENT_EPOCHS_FOR_DEACTIVATION`
-            if eligible_for_deactivate_delinquent(&delinquent_vote_state.epoch_credits, clock.epoch)
-            {
-                stake.deactivate(clock.epoch)?;
+        if stake.delegation.voter_pubkey != *delinquent_vote_account_info.key {
+            return Err(StakeError::VoteAddressMismatch.into());
+        }

-                set_stake_state(
-                    stake_account_info,
-                    &StakeStateV2::Stake(meta, stake, stake_flags),
-                )
-            } else {
-                Err(StakeError::MinimumDelinquentEpochsForDeactivationNotMet.into())
-            }
-        } else {
-            Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData)
-        }?;


Inverted some of this control flow for easier reading

grod220 · 2026-09-09T10:19:29Z

+            &Pubkey::new_unique(),
        ),
        Err(ProgramError::IncorrectProgramId),
    );
    process_instruction_as_one_arg(
        &mollusk,
        &instruction::deactivate_delinquent_stake(
            &Pubkey::new_unique(),
-            &invalid_vote_state_pubkey(),
            &Pubkey::new_unique(),
+            &invalid_vote_state_pubkey(),


The error order changes because the reference vote account is now checked before the delinquent account in the processor.

joncinque

Looks great overall! Just a few small questions

joncinque · 2026-09-11T21:40:31Z

+        vote_account_info.key,
+    )
+    .map_err(|_| ProgramError::InvalidAccountData)?;
+    let vote_state = unsafe { Box::from_raw(Box::into_raw(vote_state).cast::<VoteStateV4>()) };


What's with this change from the original function?

joncinque · 2026-09-11T21:41:23Z

    solana_cpi::{get_return_data, invoke_unchecked},
    solana_program_error::ProgramError,
+    solana_vote_interface::state::VoteStateV4,
+    std::mem::MaybeUninit,


nit: although the crate isn't no-std yet, let's be sure to avoid std when it's easy

Suggested change

std::mem::MaybeUninit,

core::mem::MaybeUninit,

joncinque · 2026-09-11T21:42:27Z

 /// Check if the provided `epoch_credits` demonstrate delinquency over the previous
 /// [`MINIMUM_DELINQUENT_EPOCHS_FOR_DEACTIVATION`].
+#[deprecated(
+    since = "4.5.0",


Sorry, this version will have to change after my breaking publish 🙏

joncinque · 2026-09-11T21:48:27Z

+        return Ok(true);
+    }
+
+    let vote_state = get_vote_state(vote_account_info)?;


I think this makes sense, but just to point it out: if get_vote_state fails, then it won't be possible to use deactivate_delinquent on that account.

get_vote_state would most likely fail on a very old or very new vote state version, and we would want that to fail loudly.

joncinque · 2026-09-11T23:58:36Z

+
+        #[test_case(system_program::id(), vec![], 0; "removed_account")]
+        #[test_case(Pubkey::new_unique(), vec![255], 1; "other_owner_with_invalid_data")]
+        fn test_non_vote_owner(owner: Pubkey, data: Vec<u8>, lamports: u64) {


nit: the lamports field is a bit misleading since it doesn't make a difference in the implementation -- maybe just hardcode it in the test?

joncinque · 2026-09-12T00:01:31Z

 solana-pubkey = { version = "4.3.0", default-features = false }
 solana-stake-history = "1.0.0"
 solana-system-interface = "3.3.0"
+solana-vote-interface = { version = "5.0.0", features = ["bincode"], optional = true }


Also my fault, this'll need to be bumped to 7.0.0

joncinque · 2026-09-12T00:02:44Z

 solana-svm-log-collector = "3.0.0"
 solana-system-interface = { version = "3.3.0", features = ["bincode"] }
 solana-transaction = "3.0.2"
+solana-vote-interface = { version = "5.0.0", features = ["bincode"] }


Same with this, will need to be 7.0.0

joncinque · 2026-09-12T00:05:46Z

+#[test_case(solana_sdk_ids::vote::id(), vec![0; VoteStateV4::size_of()], 0; "closed_vote_state")]
+#[test_case(solana_sdk_ids::vote::id(), vec![0; VoteStateV4::size_of()], 1; "refunded_vote_state")]
+#[test_case(solana_sdk_ids::vote::id(), vec![0; 10 * 1024 * 1024], 1; "maximum_size_shell")]
+fn test_deactivate_delinquent_closed_vote_account(owner: Pubkey, data: Vec<u8>, lamports: u64) {


nit: same with this one, the lamports field shouldn't be doing anything, so we can hardcode it to be the same for all cases

joncinque · 2026-09-12T00:07:00Z

+    });
+    let (mut mollusk, instruction_accounts, transaction_accounts) =
        setup_deactivate_delinquent_test_with_vote_account(vote_account);
+    mollusk.compute_budget.compute_unit_limit = 200_000;


Just for my own information, why is this needed?

grod220 force-pushed the dd-closed-vt-accnt branch from 9fc637b to 759f64b Compare September 9, 2026 10:09

grod220 commented Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

SIMD-0608: DeactivateDelinquent for Closed Vote Accounts

522e6bc

grod220 force-pushed the dd-closed-vt-accnt branch from 759f64b to 522e6bc Compare September 9, 2026 10:17

grod220 commented Sep 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

grod220 requested review from 2501babe and joncinque September 9, 2026 10:21

joncinque reviewed Sep 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

`DeactivateDelinquent` for Closed Vote Accounts [SIMD-0608] - #532

`DeactivateDelinquent` for Closed Vote Accounts [SIMD-0608]#532
grod220 wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
dd-closed-vt-accnt

grod220 commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

grod220 Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

grod220 Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

grod220 Sep 9, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque left a comment

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 12, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 12, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 12, 2026

Uh oh!

joncinque Sep 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

grod220 commented Sep 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

New Behavior

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joncinque left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

grod220 commented Sep 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading