-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 200
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
blockstore: always send a coding shred for chained merkle root conflicts #1353
blockstore: always send a coding shred for chained merkle root conflicts #1353
Conversation
@@ -1904,35 +1902,33 @@ impl Blockstore { | |||
return true; | |||
}; | |||
|
|||
let Some(prev_merkle_root_meta) = merkle_root_metas |
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.
This is safe because self.previous_erasure_set()
on line 1896 must have found an ErasureMeta
for prev_erasure_set
in order to reach here.
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.
Shouldn't fn previous_erasure_set
actually return that ErasureMeta
instead of looking it up again here?
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.
yeah good point, I didn't do this last time because we only needed the merkle root.
Updated it to return the meta as well.
error!( | ||
"Shred {prev_shred_id:?} indicated by merkle root meta {prev_merkle_root_meta:?} is missing from blockstore. | ||
This should only happen in extreme cases where blockstore cleanup has caught up to the root. | ||
warn!( |
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.
We enter this if either:
- Blockstore cleanup has caught up to root and
prev_shred
has been cleaned up prev_erasure_meta
was inserted with an older version andprev_erasure_meta.first_received_coding_shred_index()
points to shred 0 which we do not have.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1353 +/- ##
=========================================
- Coverage 82.7% 82.7% -0.1%
=========================================
Files 876 876
Lines 371180 371185 +5
=========================================
Hits 307275 307275
- Misses 63905 63910 +5 |
5d1506a
to
f1c4bf8
Compare
f1c4bf8
to
1f28b82
Compare
Backports to the beta branch are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for fixing bugs, security issues, and perf regressions. Changes intended for backport should be structured such that a minimum effective diff can be committed separately from any refactoring, plumbing, cleanup, etc that are not strictly necessary to achieve the goal. Any of the latter should go only into master and ride the normal stabilization schedule. Exceptions include CI/metrics changes, CLI improvements and documentation updates on a case by case basis. |
Problem
#835 has a chance to send a chained merkle root conflict duplicate proof consisting of 2 data shreds.
With 2 data shreds we cannot verify that they are from adjacent FEC sets. We require that the shred from the lower FEC set be a coding shred.
Summary of Changes
This ensures that we always send a coding shred for the lower FEC set, meaning the gossip handler can verify that duplicate proofs are for adjacent FEC sets.
Without this verification an attacker can arbitrarily pick non adjacent FEC sets to "prove" that every block is duplicate
Contributes to solana-labs#34897