Merge #16421: Conservatively accept RBF bumps bumping one tx at the package limits

5ce822efbe Conservatively accept RBF bumps bumping one tx at the package limits (Matt Corallo)

Pull request description:

  Based on #15681, this adds support for some simple cases of RBF inside of large packages. Issue pointed out by sdaftuar in #15681, and this fix (or a broader one) is required ot make #15681 fully useful.

  Accept RBF bumps of single transactions (ie which evict exactly one
  transaction) even when that transaction is a member of a package
  which is currently at the package limit iff the new transaction
  does not add any additional mempool dependencies from the original.

  This could be made a bit looser in the future and still be safe,
  but for now this fixes the case that a transaction which was
  accepted by the carve-out rule will not be directly RBF'able

ACKs for top commit:
  instagibbs:
    re-ACK 5ce822efbe
  ajtowns:
    ACK 5ce822efbe ; GetSizeWithDescendants is only change and makes sense
  sipa:
    Code review ACK 5ce822efbe. I haven't thought hard about the effect on potential DoS issues this policy change may have.

Tree-SHA512: 1cee3bc57393940a30206679eb60c3ec8cb4f4825d27d40d1f062c86bd22542dd5944fa5567601c74c8d9fd425333ed3e686195170925cfc68777e861844bd55
This commit is contained in:
fanquake
2019-09-07 09:32:01 +08:00
2 changed files with 51 additions and 3 deletions

View File

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
outputs = {}
for i in range(num_outputs):
outputs[node.getnewaddress()] = send_value
rawtx = node.createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs)
rawtx = node.createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs, 0, True)
signedtx = node.signrawtransactionwithwallet(rawtx)
txid = node.sendrawtransaction(signedtx['hex'])
fulltx = node.getrawtransaction(txid, 1)
@@ -75,10 +75,16 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
# ...especially if its > 40k weight
assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain, too many descendants", self.chain_transaction, self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 350)
# But not if it chains directly off the first transaction
self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 1)
(replacable_txid, replacable_orig_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], [chain[0][0]], [1], chain[0][1], fee, 1)
# and the second chain should work just fine
self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], [second_chain], [0], second_chain_value, fee, 1)
# Make sure we can RBF the chain which used our carve-out rule
second_tx_outputs = {self.nodes[0].getrawtransaction(replacable_txid, True)["vout"][0]['scriptPubKey']['addresses'][0]: replacable_orig_value - (Decimal(1) / Decimal(100))}
second_tx = self.nodes[0].createrawtransaction([{'txid': chain[0][0], 'vout': 1}], second_tx_outputs)
signed_second_tx = self.nodes[0].signrawtransactionwithwallet(second_tx)
self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(signed_second_tx['hex'])
# Finally, check that we added two transactions
assert_equal(len(self.nodes[0].getrawmempool(True)), MAX_ANCESTORS + 3)