Skip to main content
Technical proposal SIMD-0162 Implemented

Remove Accounts `is_executable` Flag Checks

  1. Idea
  2. Draft
  3. Review
  4. Accept
  5. Implement
  6. Active

Decision brief

Why this proposal matters

Remove all checks of accounts is_executable flag which can throw errors in the runtime.

Source-backed reading aid · source language: EN

Proposal at a glance

What changes

  • Setting of the is_executable flag during program deployment in loader-v3
  • Calculation of the account hashes
  • Minimization of snapshots

Stakeholder map

Who is affected

Builders & client teams Medium impact

The only consensus relevant change is that it will become possible (for everybody) to donate funds to program accounts. That however is expected not to break any existing programs.

Action requirement unknown
Validators & operators Medium impact

Setting of the is_executable flag during program deployment in loader-v3

Action requirement unknown
Users & stakers Impact unknown

No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.

Action requirement unknown
Governance & ecosystem Impact unknown

No proposal-specific evidence was found for this group.

Action requirement unknown

Exact source revision

Full proposal document

Source-language document. Technical identifiers and evidence remain unchanged. 0616093b2952

Summary

Remove all checks of accounts is_executable flag which can throw errors in the runtime.

Motivation

Currently, a program account which satisfies the following conditions can be invoked / executed:

  • Has the is_executable flag set
  • Is owned by a loader
  • Contains a successfully verified ELF, contains the address of a program data account which does or is a built-in program

The second condition can be used as a performance optimization to filter out accounts which definitely do not contain programs and the third condition alone would be sufficient to guarantee correct execution. The first condition is however is not only useless, it is downright deceptive and entangled with the confusing proxy account workaround in loader-v3.

Originally, the is_executable flag meant that a program was deployed and finalized, which effectively renders its program account read-only forever, as the is_executable can not be cleared / reset.

With the introduction of the upgradeable loader (loader-v3), instead of removing the first condition back then, a workaround was created: The program account became a proxy account which has the is_executable flag set and then points to the actual program data account which does not have the is_executable flag set. Meaning the is_executable flag now neither does reliably indicate that an account contains a program (as the program data account does not have the flag set), nor does it indicate that a program is finalized (as the program account has it set while the program remains upgradeable).

Removing the first condition not only removes some redundant error checks from the runtime and confusion for future maintainers, but more importantly enables us to deploy loader-v4 which is upgradeable like loader-v3 but without the need for proxy accounts.

New Terminology

None.

Detailed Design

This proposal aims to unblock loader-v4 with minimal impact on the ecosystem by only removing checks of the is_executable flag. A complete removal of the flag can be addressed in a subsequent proposal. Thus, the following must remain unaffected for now:

  • Setting of the is_executable flag during program deployment in loader-v3
  • Calculation of the account hashes
  • Minimization of snapshots
  • Serialization of instruction accounts is_executable flag for dapps
  • CPI ignores changes made by the caller to instruction accounts which have the is_executable flag set

These checks of the is_executable flag must be removed:

  • ExecutableLamportChange during execution (transaction succeeds instead)

These checks of the is_executable flag do not influence whether transactions fail or succeed because they are all covered by other checks. Thus, only the thrown error codes will change, which does not affect consensus. Nevertheless, they should still be removed because all implementations should aim to produce the same error codes:

  • during transaction loading:

    • InvalidProgramForExecution (fallthrough to UnsupportedProgramId during execution)
    • AccountNotExecutable (fallthrough to UnsupportedProgramId during execution)
    • Meaning the transaction loading checks are effectively deferred until execution, which gives users more complete transaction logs.
  • in the Upgrade instruction of loader-v3:

    • AccountNotExecutable (fallthrough to IncorrectProgramId or InvalidAccountData, depending on the owner)
  • during execution:

    • AccountNotExecutable (fallthrough to UnsupportedProgramId during execution)
    • IncorrectProgramId (fallthrough to UnsupportedProgramId during execution)
    • ExecutableDataModified (fallthrough to ExternalAccountDataModified during execution)
    • ExecutableModified (is unreachable, as it is overshadowed by owner and writability checks)
    • ModifiedProgramId (is unreachable, as it is overshadowed by owner and writability checks)

Similarly the following checks during execution, unrelated to the is_executable flag, but related to whether an account contains a program or not, should be changed to throw UnsupportedProgramId instead:

  • InvalidAccountData for programs which are closed, in visibility delay, failed verification or not owned by a loader
  • IncorrectProgramId for unrecognized built-in programs

All in all, the following error messages related to invocation of program accounts will be coalesced into UnsupportedProgramId, but some of them will remain in use in other circumstances unrelated to program execution:

  • InvalidProgramForExecution
  • AccountNotExecutable
  • InvalidAccountData
  • IncorrectProgramId
  • UnsupportedProgramId

Alternatives Considered

None.

Impact

Error codes of these conditions, which are rarely triggered, will change.

The only consensus relevant change is that it will become possible (for everybody) to donate funds to program accounts. That however is expected not to break any existing programs.

Security Considerations

None.

Evidence graph

Related proposals and rollout

One or more sources are unavailable.

Upstream review record

Upstream discussion & review

GitHub review is editorial context, not evidence of on-chain support, voting, or outcome.

PR #162 · merged SIMD-0162: Remove Accounts isexecutable Flag Checks 15 comments and reviews · Jan 19, 2026
@Lichtso

Some of them (such as InvalidAccountData) can still be produced by other built-in / core programs, e.g. program management instructions.

GitHub ↗
@buffalojoec

Okay sounds good. No change needed here imo, then.

GitHub ↗
@Lichtso

Loader-v4 will get its own SIMD explaining it in full detail.

GitHub ↗
@joncinque

It looks like there's consensus here. If no one objects within the next week, I'll merge this on 25 November.

GitHub ↗
@jstarry

I'm confused why this was left in because by allowing executable accounts to be written, it becomes important that any changes to executable accounts are handled properly. Without this change, not only does CPI ignore changes made my the caller, it also ignores changes made by the callee. In the latter case, when the caller returns, the runtime will fail the transaction because it will think that the caller tried to revert the callee changes. Also imagine if during a CPI, both the caller and callee program sent a lamport to an executable account from a non executable writable account. The caller sends the lamport first, then when the callee is cpi'd it hasn't seen the lamport change so when

GitHub ↗
@Lichtso

Sorry for the ambiguous formulation. What is meant is not that isexecutable flag can be set (you can not change the isexecutable flag inside the VM anyway), instead it means that CPI behavior was dependent on the state of the isexecutable for instruction accounts, and we do not change any of that in this SIMD ("the following must remain unaffected for now").

GitHub ↗
@Lichtso

We had to leave it in because direct mapping would break otherwise. We can only remove it after activating and cleaning up the feature gate of direct mapping.

GitHub ↗
@jstarry

Sorry for the ambiguous formulation. What is meant is not that isexecutable flag can be set (you can not change the isexecutable flag inside the VM anyway) I think the SIMD was clear. I wasn't thinking you meant that the isexecutable flag can be set. I meant that other fields in executable accounts can be modified now but this CPI behavior would cause surprising errors when executable accounts are modified in otherwise valid ways (e.g. adding lamports as you noted in the impact section) We had to leave it in because direct mapping would break otherwise. We can only remove it after activating and cleaning up the feature gate of direct mapping. Surely there was some way to make it work before

GitHub ↗

simd.watch community discussion · SIMD-0162

Powered by Giscus · Sign in with GitHub to comment

Community comments load when this section approaches the viewport.

Provenance

Evidence & technical details

Rollout or chain data, source revisions, freshness and integrity.
1

SIMD

Deployment Status

Document lifecycleImplemented
CategoryCore protocol
Devnetactive Epoch 903
Testnetactive Epoch 798
Mainnet-Betaactive Epoch 811
FXs1zh47QbNnhXcnB6YiAQoJ4sGB91tKF3UFHLcKT7PM

Exact source revision

Sources & integrity

  • Proposal document pinned_commit_blob
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9
  • simd-document document · current · Sep 11, 2026
    0616093b2952ed6de52c4a27d66aadd11d48d4f9

One or more sources are unavailable.