This was in fact untested until now. This can be checked with the following diff.
```diff
diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
index 0c4a89c44cb..f8b9adf910a 100644
--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
@@ -1822,7 +1822,7 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::MaybePunishNodeForBlock(NodeId nodeid, const BlockValidati
}
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_INVALID_HEADER:
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_INVALID_PREV:
- if (peer) Misbehaving(*peer, message);
+ if (!via_compact_block && peer) Misbehaving(*peer, message);
return;
// Conflicting (but not necessarily invalid) data or different policy:
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_MISSING_PREV:
```
Submit the block with an invalid transaction Script again, leading to
CACHED_INVALID being returned by AcceptBlockHeader(). Ensure that also this
code path does not lead to a disconnection.
This was previously untested, as can be checked with the following diff:
```diff
diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
index 0c4a89c44cb..e8e0c805367 100644
--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
@@ -1814,10 +1814,10 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::MaybePunishNodeForBlock(NodeId nodeid, const BlockValidati
{
// Discourage outbound (but not inbound) peers if on an invalid chain.
// Exempt HB compact block peers. Manual connections are always protected from discouragement.
- if (peer && !via_compact_block && !peer->m_is_inbound) {
+ //if (peer && !via_compact_block && !peer->m_is_inbound) {
if (peer) Misbehaving(*peer, message);
return;
- }
+ //}
break;
}
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_INVALID_HEADER:
```
The current test to exercise a block with an invalid transaction actually
creates a block with an invalid coinbase witness, which is checked early and
for which MaybePunishNodeForBlock() is not called.
Add a test case with an invalid regular transaction, which will lead
CheckInputScripts to return a CONSENSUS error and MaybePunishNodeForBlock() to
be called, appropriately not disconnecting upon an invalid compact block. This
was until now untested as can be checked with the following diff:
```diff
diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
index 0c4a89c44cb..d243fb88d4b 100644
--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
@@ -1805,10 +1805,10 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::MaybePunishNodeForBlock(NodeId nodeid, const BlockValidati
// The node is providing invalid data:
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_CONSENSUS:
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_MUTATED:
- if (!via_compact_block) {
+ //if (!via_compact_block) {
if (peer) Misbehaving(*peer, message);
return;
- }
+ //}
break;
case BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_CACHED_INVALID:
{
```
Finally, note this failure is cached (unlike the malleated witness failure),
which will be used in the following commits.
The error being checked here is BLOCK_MUTATED, as returned by IsBlockMutated()
in FillBlock(). Dropping the fourth transaction from the block is unnecessary
and would make testing of other block validation failures in following commits
more verbose.
Note that we unfortunately can't use a scripted diff here, as the
`sha256` symbol is also used for other instances (e.g. as function
in hashlib, or in the `UTXO` class in p2p_segwit.py).
Since the previous commit, CBlockHeader/CBlock object calls to the
methods `.rehash()` and `.calc_sha256()` are effectively no-ops
if the returned value is not used, so we can just remove them.
Since the previous commit, CTransaction object calls to the
methods `.rehash()` and `.calc_sha256()` are effectively no-ops
if the returned value is not used, so we can just remove them.
In the functional tests there are lots of cases where we assert != which
this new util will replace, we also are adding the imports and the new assertion
a82829f37e test: simplify (w)txid checks by avoiding .calc_sha256 calls (Sebastian Falbesoner)
346a099fc1 test: avoid unneeded hash -> uint256 -> hash roundtrips (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
In the functional test framework we currently have a strong tendency to treat and store identifiers that result from hash functions (e.g. (w)txids, block hashes) as integers, which seems an unnatural and confusing choice. Hashes are just pseudo-random sequences of bytes, and there is usually no need to apply integer operations on them; the only exceptions I could think of is PoW-verification of block hashes with the less-than (`<`) operator, or interpreting the byte-string as scalar in the EC-context for e.g. key derivation.
I'd hence argue that most uses of `ser_uint256`/`uint256_from_str` and txid conversions via `int(txid/blockhash, 16)` are potential code smells and should be reduced to a minimum long-term if possible. This PR is a first step into this direction, intentionally kept small with (what I think) uncontroversial changes for demonstration purposes, to check out if other contributors are interested in this. A next step could be to change the classes of primitives (CTransaction, CBlock etc.) and network messages (msg_) to store hash results as actual bytes (maybe in a class wrapping the bytes that offers conversion from/to human-readable strings [1], for easier interaction with RPC calls and debug outputs) rather than ints. But that would of course need larger, potentially more controversial changes, and its questionable if its really worth the effort.
[1] unfortunately, txids and block hashes are shown to user in reverse byte order, so e.g. a txid_bytes->txid_str conversion is not just a simple `txid_bytes.hex()`, but a `txid_bytes[::-1].hex()`
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
review ACK a82829f37e🐘
rkrux:
Concept and utACK a82829f37e
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK a82829f37e. Nice changes, and sorry about the false bug report
Tree-SHA512: bb0465802d743a495207800f922b65f49ed0d20552f95bb0bee764944664092aad74812e29df6e01ef40bcb8f9bc6c84c7e9cbbe6f008ee1a14d94ed88e698b4
send_message only drops the bytes in a buffer and a sync is needed to
avoid intermittent test issues. Change the name of the method to make
this more apparent during review.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
sed -i 's/send_message(/send_without_ping(/g' $( git grep -l 'send_message(' )
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
Calls on the tx.calc_sha256 method can be confusing, as they return
the result (either txid or wtxid, depending on the with_witness
boolean parameter) as integer rather than as actual (w)txid. Use
.rehash() and .getwtxid() instead to improve readability and in some
cases avoid a conversion from string-txid to an integer.
Previously, `wait_for_getheaders` would check whether a node had received **any**
getheaders message. This implied that, if a test needed to check for a specific block
hash within a headers message, it had to make sure that it was checking the desired message.
This normally involved having to manually clear `last_message`. This method, apart from being
too verbose, was error prone, given an undesired `getheaders` would make tests pass.
This adds the ability to check for a specific block_hash within the last `getheaders` message.
In order to prevent memory DoS, we must ensure that we don't accept a new
header into memory until we've performed anti-DoS checks, such as verifying
that the header is part of a sufficiently high work chain. This commit adds a
new argument to AcceptBlockHeader() so that we can ensure that all call-sites
which might cause a new header to be accepted into memory have to grapple with
the question of whether the header is safe to accept, or needs further
validation.
This patch also fixes two places where low-difficulty-headers could have been
processed without such validation (processing an unrequested block from the
network, and processing a compact block).
Credit to Niklas Gögge for noticing this issue, and thanks to Sjors Provoost
for test code.
The only place that segwit=True is for a block that contains only the
coinbase transaction. Since the witness commitment is optional if none
of the transactions have a witness, we can leave it out. This doesn't
change the test coverage, which is testing p2p compact block logic.
Suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20799#discussion_r867782119
Subsequent commits will remove support for other versions of compact blocks.
Add a test that a received `sendcmpct` message with version = 1 is
ignored.
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
343dc4760f test: add test for high-bandwidth mode states in getpeerinfo (Sebastian Falbesoner)
dab6583307 doc: release note for new getpeerinfo fields "bip152_hb_{from,to}" (Sebastian Falbesoner)
a7ed00f8bb rpc: expose high-bandwidth mode states via getpeerinfo (Sebastian Falbesoner)
30bc8fab68 net: save high-bandwidth mode states in CNodeStats (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Fixes#19676, "_For every peer expose through getpeerinfo RPC whether or not we selected them as HB peers, and whether or not they selected us as HB peers._" See [BIP152](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0152.mediawiki), in particular the [protocol flow diagram](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/raw/master/bip-0152/protocol-flow.png). The newly introduced states are changed on the following places in the code:
* on reception of a `SENDCMPCT` message with valid version, the field `m_highbandwidth_from` is changed depending on the first integer parameter in the message (1=high bandwidth, 0=low bandwidth), i.e. it just mirrors the field `CNodeState.fPreferHeaderAndIDs`.
* after adding a `SENDCMPCT` message to the send queue, the field `m_highbandwidth_to` is changed depending on how the first integer parameter is set (same as above)
Note that after receiving `VERACK`, the node also sends `SENDCMPCT`, but that is only to announce the preferred version and never selects high-bandwidth mode, hence there is no need to change the state variables there, which are initialized to `false` anyways.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
reACK 343dc4760f
jonatack:
re-ACK 343dc4760f per `git range-diff 7ea6499 4df1d12 343dc47`
Tree-SHA512: f4999e6a935266812c2259a9b5dc459710037d3c9e938006d282557cc225e56128f72965faffb207fc60c6531fab1206db976dd8729a69e8ca29d4835317b99f
d438d609cd QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct (Luke Dashjr)
1df2cd1c8f QA: blocktools: Accept block template to create_block (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
The goal here is to decouple unrelated tests from the details of block versions.
Currently, these tests are forcing specific versions of blocks for no real reason.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK d438d609cd
benthecarman:
ACK d438d60
Tree-SHA512: 523b1cd4dac8d65c88432e126ce7f60df96ca4b94f7ecc8e83ba4ffbade23e2afe7055fdf586ce3c195a533f2004e63fff83add4267b39473a581c9f1c6d5340
638441928a test: add parameterized constructor for msg_sendcmpct() (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
While working on the test for #19776 I noticed that creating a `sendcmpct` message is quite cumbersome -- due to the lack of a parameterized constructor, one needs to create an empty (that is, initialized with default values) object and then set the two fields one by one. This PR replaces the default constructor with a parameterized constructor and uses it in the test `p2p_compactblocks.py`, reducing LOC. No need to pollute the namespace with temporary throw-away message objects anymore.
ACKs for top commit:
guggero:
Code review ACK 638441928a.
epson121:
Code review ACK 638441928a
Tree-SHA512: 3b58d276d714b73abc6cc98d1d52dec5f6026b33f03faaeb7dcbc5d83ac377555179f98b159b2b9ecc8957999c35a1dc082e3c69299c5fde4e35f1bd0587ce9d
dac7a111bd refactor: test: use _ variable for unused loop counters (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This tiny PR substitutes Python loops in the form of `for x in range(N): ...` by `for _ in range(N): ...` where applicable. The idea is indicating to the reader that a block (or statement, in list comprehensions) is just repeated N times, and that the loop counter is not used in the body, hence using the throwaway variable. This is already done quite often in the current tests (see e.g. `$ git grep "for _ in range("`). Another alternative would be using `itertools.repeat` (according to Python core developer Raymond Hettinger it's [even faster](https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1144527183341375488)), but that doesn't seem to be widespread in use and I'm not sure about a readability increase.
The only drawback I see is that whenever one wants to debug loop iterations, one would need to introduce a loop variable again. Reviewing this is basically a no-brainer, since tests would fail immediately if a a substitution has taken place on a loop where the variable is used.
Instances to replace were found by `$ git grep "for.*in range("` and manually checked.
ACKs for top commit:
darosior:
ACK dac7a111bd
instagibbs:
manual inspection ACK dac7a111bd
practicalswift:
ACK dac7a111bd -- the updated code is easier to reason about since the throwaway nature of a variable is expressed explicitly (using the Pythonic `_` idiom) instead of implicitly. Explicit is better than implicit was we all know by now :)
Tree-SHA512: 5f43ded9ce14e5e00b3876ec445b90acda1842f813149ae7bafa93f3ac3d510bb778e2c701187fd2c73585e6b87797bb2d2987139bd1a9ba7d58775a59392406
substitutes "for x in range(N):" by "for _ in range(N):"
indicates to the reader that a block is just repeated N times, and
that the loop counter is not used in the body
