dbft: Implement block verification callback #87
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Collaborator
|
CN verify block failed and keep CV after there comes a tx. (4cn scenario) |
Collaborator
Author
This error
|
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2024
To be able to properly verify unsigned block after PrepareRequest receival in WithVerifyBlock dBFT callback we need to ensure that (*DBFT).Author can handle such unsugned block. Starting from the previous commit, we define block's Coinbase as the Primary address for the dBFT round when the block was accepted. And thus, return proper block author for proper verification. The problem itself is described in #87 (comment). Also ref. #51. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2024
To be able to properly verify unsigned block after PrepareRequest receival in WithVerifyBlock dBFT callback we need to ensure that (*DBFT).Author can handle such unsugned block. Starting from the previous commit, we define block's Coinbase as the Primary address for the dBFT round when the block was accepted. And thus, return proper block author for proper verification. The problem itself is described in #87 (comment). Also ref. #51. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Member
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 15, 2024
To be able to properly verify unsigned block after PrepareRequest receival in WithVerifyBlock dBFT callback we need to ensure that (*DBFT).Author can handle such unsugned block. Starting from the previous commit, we define block's Coinbase as the Primary address for the dBFT round when the block was accepted. And thus, return proper block author for proper verification. The problem itself is described in #87 (comment). Also ref. #51. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 17, 2024
To be able to properly verify unsigned block after PrepareRequest receival in WithVerifyBlock dBFT callback we need to ensure that (*DBFT).Author can handle such unsugned block. Starting from the previous commit, we define block's Coinbase as the Primary address for the dBFT round when the block was accepted. And thus, return proper block author for proper verification. The problem itself is described in #87 (comment). Also ref. #51. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 18, 2024
To be able to properly verify unsigned block after PrepareRequest receival in WithVerifyBlock dBFT callback we need to ensure that (*DBFT).Author can handle such unsugned block. Starting from the previous commit, we define block's Coinbase as the Primary address for the dBFT round when the block was accepted. And thus, return proper block author for proper verification. The problem itself is described in #87 (comment). Also ref. #51. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
a830015 to
55b64ee
Compare
Collaborator
|
CN3 failed after running for several days, may be an issue from some other place but found by this PR. 4cn-CN1
4cn-CN2
4cn-CN3
4cn-CN4
|
Member
Good, thanks, it's definitely from this PR since there's no verification callback set in the previous versions. I'll get back to review & test this PR in a few days. |
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Jan 31, 2024
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Jan 31, 2024
Member
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you, please, reformat the commit message and add Close #65. message to the commit and PR description.
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Jan 31, 2024
Member
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One important thing I worry about is transactions verification. We need not only verify storage state after in-block transactions execution, but also verify that all transactions included in block are valid, i.e. have valid fees set and etc. This should be provided by mempool, but we need to ensure that no "bad" transaction can be accepted.
For example, take a look at the way how in-block transactions are being checked in NeoGo during block verification: https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/blob/51ac153a7b009f8f69117ed987038a08dc78f261/pkg/consensus/consensus.go#L509
The difference is that NeoGo's transactions come to the consensus bypassing mempool. And Eth transactions come to consensus from mempool. However, we need to ensure that there are no conflicting transactions in the block.
Member
@nicolegys, could you please provide the git revision (commit sha) you've used to run nodes when this error occurred? |
Contributor
Consider nonce conflict, btw. Proposal (PrepareRequest) can have a different transaction for the same sender/nonce combination and it'd be valid, while you may never get this transaction from the mempool because we have some there already with a bigger fee. |
Member
We need to refactor this and send requested transactions right to the consensus bypassing mempool. This task may be done in #98, since this change should be applicable only to requested transactions. |
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Feb 1, 2024
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
8f5f116 to
2a15c97
Compare
Collaborator
Author
We have the transaction nonce and gas verify in
|
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
2a15c97 to
64143ec
Compare
Member
|
@chenquanyu, could you please rebase onto the current bane-main?
Will check this, but the overall idea is that during |
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
64143ec to
1735868
Compare
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Feb 2, 2024
Member
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
AnnaShaleva
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One major issue left with block's parent. Otherwose LGTM. I'll create a separate issue for in-block transactions reverification.
Member
|
@chenquanyu, take a look at #127, you may add some comments if needed. |
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
1735868 to
5ff6068
Compare
Collaborator
Oh, now I see this. It's |
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Feb 6, 2024
AnnaShaleva
reviewed
Feb 21, 2024
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chenquanyu, please, fix the last comment, squash commits and we'll merge this PR. I'll create a separate issue to track the problem with missing parent and we'll track if it's reproduced on the real network with the updated state retrieval code.
Also, please, create PR with the same block verification to https://github.com/bane-labs/go-ethereum/tree/t2.
Member
|
@chenquanyu, could you, please, update this PR according to the comments above? |
Member
Ref. #142 |
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c587e7f to
858a6f6
Compare
chenquanyu
force-pushed
the
dbft-verify-block
branch
from
858a6f6 to
f711fc8
Compare
AnnaShaleva
approved these changes
Feb 29, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Close #65 Implement block verification callback.