Merge bitcoin#28472: Remove MemPoolAccept::m_limits to avoid mutating…

… it in package evaluation

ee589d4 Add regression test for m_limit mutation (Greg Sanders)
275579d Remove MemPoolAccept::m_limits, only have local copies for carveouts (Greg Sanders)

Pull request description:

  Without remoing it, if we ever call `PreChecks()` multiple times for any reason during any one `MempoolAccept`, subsequent invocations may have incorrect limits, allowing longer/larger chains than should be allowed.

  Currently this is only an issue with `submitpackage`, so this is not exposed on mainnet.

ACKs for top commit:
  achow101:
    ACK ee589d4
  glozow:
    ACK ee589d4, nits can be ignored
  ariard:
    Code Review ACK ee589d4

Tree-SHA512: 14cf8edc73e014220def82563f5fb4192d1c2c111829712abf16340bfbfd9a85e2148d723af6fd4995d503dd67232b48dcf8b1711668d25b5aee5eab1bdb578c

src/txmempool.cpp

@@ -197,7 +197,6 @@ util::Result<CTxMemPool::setEntries> CTxMemPool::CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimit
 }
 
 bool CTxMemPool::CheckPackageLimits(const Package& package,
-                                    const Limits& limits,
                                     std::string &errString) const
 {
     CTxMemPoolEntry::Parents staged_ancestors;
@@ -208,8 +207,8 @@ bool CTxMemPool::CheckPackageLimits(const Package& package,
             std::optional<txiter> piter = GetIter(input.prevout.hash);
             if (piter) {
                 staged_ancestors.insert(**piter);
-                if (staged_ancestors.size() + package.size() > static_cast<uint64_t>(limits.ancestor_count)) {
-                    errString = strprintf("too many unconfirmed parents [limit: %u]", limits.ancestor_count);
+                if (staged_ancestors.size() + package.size() > static_cast<uint64_t>(m_limits.ancestor_count)) {
+                    errString = strprintf("too many unconfirmed parents [limit: %u]", m_limits.ancestor_count);
                     return false;
                 }
             }
@@ -219,7 +218,7 @@ bool CTxMemPool::CheckPackageLimits(const Package& package,
     // considered together must be within limits even if they are not interdependent. This may be
     // stricter than the limits for each individual transaction.
     const auto ancestors{CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits(total_size, package.size(),
-                                                          staged_ancestors, limits)};
+                                                          staged_ancestors, m_limits)};
     // It's possible to overestimate the ancestor/descendant totals.
     if (!ancestors.has_value()) errString = "possibly " + util::ErrorString(ancestors).original;
     return ancestors.has_value();

src/txmempool.h

@@ -606,11 +606,9 @@ class CTxMemPool
      * @param[in]       package                 Transaction package being evaluated for acceptance
      *                                          to mempool. The transactions need not be direct
      *                                          ancestors/descendants of each other.
-     * @param[in]       limits                  Maximum number and size of ancestors and descendants
      * @param[out]      errString               Populated with error reason if a limit is hit.
      */
     bool CheckPackageLimits(const Package& package,
-                            const Limits& limits,
                             std::string &errString) const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs);
 
     /** Populate setDescendants with all in-mempool descendants of hash.

src/validation.cpp

@@ -433,8 +433,7 @@ class MemPoolAccept
         m_pool(mempool),
         m_view(&m_dummy),
         m_viewmempool(&active_chainstate.CoinsTip(), m_pool),
-        m_active_chainstate(active_chainstate),
-        m_limits{m_pool.m_limits}
+        m_active_chainstate(active_chainstate)
     {
     }
 
@@ -684,8 +683,6 @@ class MemPoolAccept
 
     Chainstate& m_active_chainstate;
 
-    CTxMemPool::Limits m_limits;
-
     /** Whether the transaction(s) would replace any mempool transactions. If so, RBF rules apply. */
     bool m_rbf{false};
 };
@@ -874,6 +871,11 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args, Workspace& ws)
     if (!bypass_limits && !args.m_package_feerates && !CheckFeeRate(ws.m_vsize, ws.m_modified_fees, state)) return false;
 
     ws.m_iters_conflicting = m_pool.GetIterSet(ws.m_conflicts);
+
+    // Note that these modifications are only applicable to single transaction scenarios;
+    // carve-outs and package RBF are disabled for multi-transaction evaluations.
+    CTxMemPool::Limits maybe_rbf_limits = m_pool.m_limits;
+
     // Calculate in-mempool ancestors, up to a limit.
     if (ws.m_conflicts.size() == 1) {
         // In general, when we receive an RBF transaction with mempool conflicts, we want to know whether we
@@ -906,11 +908,11 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args, Workspace& ws)
         assert(ws.m_iters_conflicting.size() == 1);
         CTxMemPool::txiter conflict = *ws.m_iters_conflicting.begin();
 
-        m_limits.descendant_count += 1;
-        m_limits.descendant_size_vbytes += conflict->GetSizeWithDescendants();
+        maybe_rbf_limits.descendant_count += 1;
+        maybe_rbf_limits.descendant_size_vbytes += conflict->GetSizeWithDescendants();
     }
 
-    auto ancestors{m_pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(*entry, m_limits)};
+    auto ancestors{m_pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(*entry, maybe_rbf_limits)};
     if (!ancestors) {
         // If CalculateMemPoolAncestors fails second time, we want the original error string.
         // Contracting/payment channels CPFP carve-out:
@@ -926,9 +928,9 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PreChecks(ATMPArgs& args, Workspace& ws)
         // this, see https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-November/016518.html
         CTxMemPool::Limits cpfp_carve_out_limits{
             .ancestor_count = 2,
-            .ancestor_size_vbytes = m_limits.ancestor_size_vbytes,
-            .descendant_count = m_limits.descendant_count + 1,
-            .descendant_size_vbytes = m_limits.descendant_size_vbytes + EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT,
+            .ancestor_size_vbytes = maybe_rbf_limits.ancestor_size_vbytes,
+            .descendant_count = maybe_rbf_limits.descendant_count + 1,
+            .descendant_size_vbytes = maybe_rbf_limits.descendant_size_vbytes + EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT,
         };
         const auto error_message{util::ErrorString(ancestors).original};
         if (ws.m_vsize > EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT) {
@@ -1011,7 +1013,7 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::PackageMempoolChecks(const std::vector<CTransactionRef>& txn
                        { return !m_pool.exists(GenTxid::Txid(tx->GetHash()));}));
 
     std::string err_string;
-    if (!m_pool.CheckPackageLimits(txns, m_limits, err_string)) {
+    if (!m_pool.CheckPackageLimits(txns, err_string)) {
         // This is a package-wide error, separate from an individual transaction error.
         return package_state.Invalid(PackageValidationResult::PCKG_POLICY, "package-mempool-limits", err_string);
     }
@@ -1166,7 +1168,7 @@ bool MemPoolAccept::SubmitPackage(const ATMPArgs& args, std::vector<Workspace>&
         // Re-calculate mempool ancestors to call addUnchecked(). They may have changed since the
         // last calculation done in PreChecks, since package ancestors have already been submitted.
         {
-            auto ancestors{m_pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(*ws.m_entry, m_limits)};
+            auto ancestors{m_pool.CalculateMemPoolAncestors(*ws.m_entry, m_pool.m_limits)};
             if(!ancestors) {
                 results.emplace(ws.m_ptx->GetWitnessHash(), MempoolAcceptResult::Failure(ws.m_state));
                 // Since PreChecks() and PackageMempoolChecks() both enforce limits, this should never fail.

test/functional/mempool_limit.py

@@ -78,6 +78,56 @@ def fill_mempool(self):
         assert_equal(node.getmempoolinfo()['minrelaytxfee'], Decimal('0.00001000'))
         assert_greater_than(node.getmempoolinfo()['mempoolminfee'], Decimal('0.00001000'))
 
+    def test_rbf_carveout_disallowed(self):
+        node = self.nodes[0]
+
+        self.log.info("Check that individually-evaluated transactions in a package don't increase package limits for other subpackage parts")
+
+        # We set chain limits to 2 ancestors, 1 descendant, then try to get a parents-and-child chain of 2 in mempool
+        #
+        # A: Solo transaction to be RBF'd (to bump descendant limit for package later)
+        # B: First transaction in package, RBFs A by itself under individual evaluation, which would give it +1 descendant limit
+        # C: Second transaction in package, spends B. If the +1 descendant limit persisted, would make it into mempool
+
+        self.restart_node(0, extra_args=self.extra_args[0] + ["-limitancestorcount=2", "-limitdescendantcount=1"])
+
+        # Generate a confirmed utxo we will double-spend
+        rbf_utxo = self.wallet.send_self_transfer(
+            from_node=node,
+            confirmed_only=True
+        )["new_utxo"]
+        self.generate(node, 1)
+
+        # tx_A needs to be RBF'd, set minfee at set size
+        A_weight = 1000
+        mempoolmin_feerate = node.getmempoolinfo()["mempoolminfee"]
+        tx_A = self.wallet.send_self_transfer(
+            from_node=node,
+            fee=(mempoolmin_feerate / 1000) * (A_weight // 4) + Decimal('0.000001'),
+            target_weight=A_weight,
+            utxo_to_spend=rbf_utxo,
+            confirmed_only=True
+        )
+
+        # RBF's tx_A, is not yet submitted
+        tx_B = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(
+            fee=tx_A["fee"] * 4,
+            target_weight=A_weight,
+            utxo_to_spend=rbf_utxo,
+            confirmed_only=True
+        )
+
+        # Spends tx_B's output, too big for cpfp carveout (because that would also increase the descendant limit by 1)
+        non_cpfp_carveout_weight = 40001 # EXTRA_DESCENDANT_TX_SIZE_LIMIT + 1
+        tx_C = self.wallet.create_self_transfer(
+            target_weight=non_cpfp_carveout_weight,
+            fee = (mempoolmin_feerate / 1000) * (non_cpfp_carveout_weight // 4) + Decimal('0.000001'),
+            utxo_to_spend=tx_B["new_utxo"],
+            confirmed_only=True
+        )
+
+        assert_raises_rpc_error(-26, "too-long-mempool-chain", node.submitpackage, [tx_B["hex"], tx_C["hex"]])
+
     def test_mid_package_eviction(self):
         node = self.nodes[0]
         self.log.info("Check a package where each parent passes the current mempoolminfee but would cause eviction before package submission terminates")
@@ -324,6 +374,7 @@ def run_test(self):
 
         self.test_mid_package_replacement()
         self.test_mid_package_eviction()
+        self.test_rbf_carveout_disallowed()
 
 
 if __name__ == '__main__':