Bad blocks - potential fix #6212
Merged
Conversation
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 reverts commit 9be4bd3.
|
Can you add a description on step 4. Main chain changed to which block? And on step 6, which state root is it building on top off? |
Updated steps + you can check unit test to understand it. |
benaadams
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2023
| @@ -665,12 +665,13 @@ private ProcessingBranch PrepareProcessingBranch(Block suggestedBlock, Processin | |||
| // otherwise some nodes would be missing | |||
| bool notFoundTheBranchingPointYet = !_blockTree.IsMainChain(branchingPoint.Hash!); | |||
| bool notReachedTheReorgBoundary = branchingPoint.Number > (_blockTree.Head?.Header.Number ?? 0); | |||
| preMergeFinishBranchingCondition = (notFoundTheBranchingPointYet || notReachedTheReorgBoundary); | |||
| bool notInBlockProduction = !options.ContainsFlag(ProcessingOptions.ProducingBlock); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
notInForceProcessing?
thx, changed.
oh yeah. This code looks unnecessary now, but I am not going to touch it in this PR. Let's analyze it more
brbrr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2023
* Potential bad blocks fix * Revert "Potential bad blocks fix" This reverts commit 9be4bd3. * Potential fix * Integration tests with iInvalid block and fix * cleanup tests * notInForceProcessing
brbrr
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 24, 2023
* Potential bad blocks fix * Revert "Potential bad blocks fix" This reverts commit 9be4bd3. * Potential fix * Integration tests with iInvalid block and fix * cleanup tests * notInForceProcessing
jakubgs
added a commit
to status-im/infra-role-nethermind
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2023
To address invalid block production bug: NethermindEth/nethermind#6212 https://github.com/NethermindEth/nethermind/releases/tag/1.21.1 Signed-off-by: Jakub Sokołowski <jakub@status.im>
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.
Changes
We've identified invalid blocks on the Gnosis network, but the same issue can happen on Ethereum Mainnet. During our debugging session, we uncovered that we were building on an incorrect state root (grandparent) rather than the parent state root.
The
TrySetStatefunction inBlockProducerBaseensures that we have the required state, so within the context of block production, we don't need to go through a loop. However, without this change, and in the event of a loop (or "branch") in the blockchainProcessor, we might end up building on top of an incorrect state root. This is because InitBranch sets the state root, and it could lead to the creation of an invalid block. The loop essentially goes backward in an attempt to align with the main chain, so if the main chain undergoes changes during block improvement, we might encounter this issue.The loop scenario can occur as follows:
Types of changes
What types of changes does your code introduce?
Testing
Requires testing
If yes, did you write tests?