forked from bitcoin/bitcoin
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
refactor: pass mixing wallet to CoinJoin utils by reference #6440
Closed
+34
−53
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, CTransactionBuilder doesn't actually need shared_ptr to wallet, because it doesn't own a copy of wallet in memory... That's a good finding.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we justify this? It doesn't seem correct to me. Are we sure that a CTransactionBuilder object won't outlive the wallet creating it? it seems this is the reason to use shared_ptr no? Please help clarify
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So far as I looked to code, instance of CTransactionBuilder is created in only 2 functions:
In both cases
CCoinJoinClientSession
works with CWallet object like with something that definitely exist, because both functions starts fromAssertLockHeld(m_wallet.cs_wallet);
And in both cases instance of CTransactionBuilder is a local variable which is removed after usage, so, life of CWallet object is not extended long enough to provide any extra safety. Either CTransactionBuilder is misused and all CJ code is broken (because intensive usage of CWallet everywhere), either no need to keep shared_ptr to CWallet inside CTransactionBuilder at all.
Please, revive this PR, it seems as everything is fine with this changes.
UPD: #6441 seems as gives all good guarantees about CWallet memory ownership during client code