Ignore unrequested blocks too far ahead of tip
This commit is contained in:
Suhas Daftuar
parent
9d60602444
commit
bfc30b3437
2 changed files with 63 additions and 11 deletions
|
|
@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ The test:
|
|||
it's missing an intermediate block.
|
||||
Node1 should reorg to this longer chain.
|
||||
|
||||
4b.Send 288 more blocks on the longer chain.
|
||||
Node0 should process all but the last block (too far ahead in height).
|
||||
Send all headers to Node1, and then send the last block in that chain.
|
||||
Node1 should accept the block because it's coming from a whitelisted peer.
|
||||
|
||||
5. Send a duplicate of the block in #3 to Node0.
|
||||
Node0 should not process the block because it is unrequested, and stay on
|
||||
the shorter chain.
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,13 +131,15 @@ class AcceptBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
# 2. Send one block that builds on each tip.
|
||||
# This should be accepted.
|
||||
blocks_h2 = [] # the height 2 blocks on each node's chain
|
||||
block_time = time.time() + 1
|
||||
for i in xrange(2):
|
||||
blocks_h2.append(create_block(tips[i], create_coinbase(), time.time()+1))
|
||||
blocks_h2.append(create_block(tips[i], create_coinbase(), block_time))
|
||||
blocks_h2[i].solve()
|
||||
block_time += 1
|
||||
test_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h2[0]))
|
||||
white_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h2[1]))
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(1)
|
||||
time.sleep(0.5)
|
||||
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockcount(), 2)
|
||||
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getblockcount(), 2)
|
||||
print "First height 2 block accepted by both nodes"
|
||||
|
|
@ -145,7 +152,7 @@ class AcceptBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
test_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h2f[0]))
|
||||
white_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h2f[1]))
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(1) # Give time to process the block
|
||||
time.sleep(0.5) # Give time to process the block
|
||||
for x in self.nodes[0].getchaintips():
|
||||
if x['hash'] == blocks_h2f[0].hash:
|
||||
assert_equal(x['status'], "headers-only")
|
||||
|
|
@ -164,7 +171,7 @@ class AcceptBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
test_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h3[0]))
|
||||
white_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h3[1]))
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(1)
|
||||
time.sleep(0.5)
|
||||
# Since the earlier block was not processed by node0, the new block
|
||||
# can't be fully validated.
|
||||
for x in self.nodes[0].getchaintips():
|
||||
|
|
@ -182,6 +189,45 @@ class AcceptBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
assert_equal(self.nodes[1].getblockcount(), 3)
|
||||
print "Successfully reorged to length 3 chain from whitelisted peer"
|
||||
|
||||
# 4b. Now mine 288 more blocks and deliver; all should be processed but
|
||||
# the last (height-too-high) on node0. Node1 should process the tip if
|
||||
# we give it the headers chain leading to the tip.
|
||||
tips = blocks_h3
|
||||
headers_message = msg_headers()
|
||||
all_blocks = [] # node0's blocks
|
||||
for j in xrange(2):
|
||||
for i in xrange(288):
|
||||
next_block = create_block(tips[j].sha256, create_coinbase(), tips[j].nTime+1)
|
||||
next_block.solve()
|
||||
if j==0:
|
||||
test_node.send_message(msg_block(next_block))
|
||||
all_blocks.append(next_block)
|
||||
else:
|
||||
headers_message.headers.append(CBlockHeader(next_block))
|
||||
tips[j] = next_block
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(2)
|
||||
for x in all_blocks:
|
||||
try:
|
||||
self.nodes[0].getblock(x.hash)
|
||||
if x == all_blocks[287]:
|
||||
raise AssertionError("Unrequested block too far-ahead should have been ignored")
|
||||
except:
|
||||
if x == all_blocks[287]:
|
||||
print "Unrequested block too far-ahead not processed"
|
||||
else:
|
||||
raise AssertionError("Unrequested block with more work should have been accepted")
|
||||
|
||||
headers_message.headers.pop() # Ensure the last block is unrequested
|
||||
white_node.send_message(headers_message) # Send headers leading to tip
|
||||
white_node.send_message(msg_block(tips[1])) # Now deliver the tip
|
||||
try:
|
||||
time.sleep(0.5)
|
||||
self.nodes[1].getblock(tips[1].hash)
|
||||
print "Unrequested block far ahead of tip accepted from whitelisted peer"
|
||||
except:
|
||||
raise AssertionError("Unrequested block from whitelisted peer not accepted")
|
||||
|
||||
# 5. Test handling of unrequested block on the node that didn't process
|
||||
# Should still not be processed (even though it has a child that has more
|
||||
# work).
|
||||
|
|
@ -204,21 +250,20 @@ class AcceptBlockTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
|
|||
test_node.last_getdata = None
|
||||
test_node.send_message(msg_inv([CInv(2, blocks_h3[0].sha256)]))
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(1)
|
||||
time.sleep(0.5)
|
||||
with mininode_lock:
|
||||
getdata = test_node.last_getdata
|
||||
|
||||
# Check that the getdata is for the right block
|
||||
assert_equal(len(getdata.inv), 1)
|
||||
# Check that the getdata includes the right block
|
||||
assert_equal(getdata.inv[0].hash, blocks_h2f[0].sha256)
|
||||
print "Inv at tip triggered getdata for unprocessed block"
|
||||
|
||||
# 7. Send the missing block for the third time (now it is requested)
|
||||
test_node.send_message(msg_block(blocks_h2f[0]))
|
||||
|
||||
time.sleep(1)
|
||||
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockcount(), 3)
|
||||
print "Successfully reorged to length 3 chain from non-whitelisted peer"
|
||||
time.sleep(2)
|
||||
assert_equal(self.nodes[0].getblockcount(), 290)
|
||||
print "Successfully reorged to longer chain from non-whitelisted peer"
|
||||
|
||||
[ c.disconnect_node() for c in connections ]
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2841,9 +2841,15 @@ bool AcceptBlock(CBlock& block, CValidationState& state, CBlockIndex** ppindex,
|
|||
|
||||
// Try to process all requested blocks that we don't have, but only
|
||||
// process an unrequested block if it's new and has enough work to
|
||||
// advance our tip.
|
||||
// advance our tip, and isn't too many blocks ahead.
|
||||
bool fAlreadyHave = pindex->nStatus & BLOCK_HAVE_DATA;
|
||||
bool fHasMoreWork = (chainActive.Tip() ? pindex->nChainWork > chainActive.Tip()->nChainWork : true);
|
||||
// Blocks that are too out-of-order needlessly limit the effectiveness of
|
||||
// pruning, because pruning will not delete block files that contain any
|
||||
// blocks which are too close in height to the tip. Apply this test
|
||||
// regardless of whether pruning is enabled; it should generally be safe to
|
||||
// not process unrequested blocks.
|
||||
bool fTooFarAhead = (pindex->nHeight - chainActive.Height()) > MIN_BLOCKS_TO_KEEP;
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO: deal better with return value and error conditions for duplicate
|
||||
// and unrequested blocks.
|
||||
|
|
@ -2851,6 +2857,7 @@ bool AcceptBlock(CBlock& block, CValidationState& state, CBlockIndex** ppindex,
|
|||
if (!fRequested) { // If we didn't ask for it:
|
||||
if (pindex->nTx != 0) return true; // This is a previously-processed block that was pruned
|
||||
if (!fHasMoreWork) return true; // Don't process less-work chains
|
||||
if (fTooFarAhead) return true; // Block height is too high
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if ((!CheckBlock(block, state)) || !ContextualCheckBlock(block, state, pindex->pprev)) {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue