Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Apply peer action when there are gossip validation errors #3772

Open
twoeths opened this issue Feb 18, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #3781
Open

Apply peer action when there are gossip validation errors #3772

twoeths opened this issue Feb 18, 2022 · 6 comments · Fixed by #3781
Assignees
Labels
prio-medium Resolve this some time soon (tm). scope-profitability Issues to directly improve validator performance and its profitability.

Comments

@twoeths
Copy link
Contributor

twoeths commented Feb 18, 2022

Describe the bug

Hetzner-s2 shows a lot of rejected ContributionAndProof gossip messages but other nodes show nothing
Screen Shot 2022-02-18 at 14 28 24

The lodestar_gossip_validation_accept_total metric is the same for all nodes.

ls 2022-02-16 | grep "contribution" |  wc -l
174
 ls 2022-02-15 | grep "contribution" |  wc -l
125

Expected behavior

  • It should be consistent across nodes
@twoeths
Copy link
Contributor Author

twoeths commented Feb 18, 2022

all errors are the same: SYNC_COMMITTEE_ERROR_VALIDATOR_NOT_IN_SYNC_COMMITTEE

Feb-16 00:14:20.583 [NETWORK]         ^[[34mdebug^[[39m: The invalid gossip contribution and proof was written to .../contributionAndProof_0x6bb15ca4bbe8160f97304dfe42521a0f3df6cd518ccefe091f3a6f9f929d784a_1644966860583.ssz

@twoeths
Copy link
Contributor Author

twoeths commented Feb 18, 2022

all of the errors are correct as the validator is really not in the sync committee at the specified slot.

This works as designed since some nodes could catch invalid gossip messages and not spread them to the network, other nodes may not see them.

This brings another concern: if a node keeps receiving invalid messages from another node, right now it only decreases gossip score of peer, should we also decrease score at lodestar side, and in the end disconnect the peer?

@dapplion
Copy link
Contributor

if a node keeps receiving invalid messages from another node, right now it only decreases gossip score of peer, should we also decrease score at lodestar side, and in the end disconnect the peer?

Maybe the logic to decide what peers to disconnect should consider gossip score too

@twoeths
Copy link
Contributor Author

twoeths commented Feb 18, 2022

if a node keeps receiving invalid messages from another node, right now it only decreases gossip score of peer, should we also decrease score at lodestar side, and in the end disconnect the peer?

Maybe the logic to decide what peers to disconnect should consider gossip score too

What lighthouse does is to also penalize peer at node side depending on the gossip error https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/blob/c3a793fd73a3b11b130b82032904d39c952869e4/beacon_node/network/src/beacon_processor/worker/gossip_methods.rs#L1339

for example if a peer sends invalid signature attestations for 5 times, it'll get banned at node (lodestar) side due to LowToleranceError PeerAction

@twoeths twoeths reopened this Mar 18, 2022
@twoeths twoeths self-assigned this Mar 18, 2022
@twoeths twoeths changed the title Inconsistent gossip validation result Apply peer action when there are gossip validation errors Mar 18, 2022
@dapplion dapplion added scope-profitability Issues to directly improve validator performance and its profitability. prio-medium Resolve this some time soon (tm). labels Jun 29, 2022
@wemeetagain
Copy link
Member

@twoeths is this still relevant?

@twoeths
Copy link
Contributor Author

twoeths commented Oct 11, 2024

yes it is, will work on this

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
prio-medium Resolve this some time soon (tm). scope-profitability Issues to directly improve validator performance and its profitability.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants