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
[25.x] backports #29531
[25.x] backports #29531
Conversation
…Destination` fails Github-Pull: bitcoin#29510 Rebased-From: 367bb7a
…`getnewaddress` failures Github-Pull: bitcoin#29510 Rebased-From: e073f1d
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. |
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure. |
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.
ACK f93be01
Verified that the correct commits are referenced in the commit messages here and that the content matches
Suggest resetting to luke-jr@fix_reservedest_failure_pr29510-24 (merges into 24.x, 25.x, and 26.x) for cleaner backports |
Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 95bddb9
Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 66abce1
Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 2d8495e
We preemptively perform a block mutation check before further processing a block message (similar to early sanity checks on other messsage types). The main reasons for this change are as follows: - `CBlock::GetHash()` is a foot-gun without a prior mutation check, as the hash returned only commits to the header but not to the actual transactions (`CBlock::vtx`) contained in the block. - We have observed attacks that abused mutated blocks in the past, which could have been prevented by simply not processing mutated blocks (e.g. bitcoin#27608). Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 49257c0
Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 5bf4f5b
Slight performance improvement by avoiding duplicate work. Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: 1ec6bbe
Github-Pull: bitcoin#29412 Rebased-From: d8087ad
…v block Github-Pull: bitcoin#29524 Rebased-From: a1fbde0
Pushed the final changes for 25.2rc2 |
The win64 CI can be ignored, and the TSAN failure is an upstream issue, but the tests are segfaulting in the ASAN job: Running tests: amount_tests from test/amount_tests.cpp
make[4]: Entering directory '/tmp/cirrus-ci-build/ci/scratch/build/bitcoin-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src'
/bin/bash: line 2: 26108 Segmentation fault (core dumped) test/test_bitcoin --catch_system_errors=no -l test_suite -t "$( cat test/amount_tests.cpp | grep -E "(BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_SUITE\\(|BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE\\()" | cut -d '(' -f 2 | cut -d ',' -f 1 | cut -d ')' -f 1 )" -- DEBUG_LOG_OUT > "$TEST_LOGFILE" 2>&1
make[3]: *** [Makefile:21916: test/amount_tests.cpp.test] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... |
Can't reproduce locally to debug. |
You can run the ASAN CI job locally, it recreates there. |
Doesn't look like this is an us problem. Also, it does not segfault consistently. |
In my testing, it seems that the ASAN task intermittently segfaults on current 25.x. I'm unable to figure out which PR actually fixes the problem. If we're okay with ignoring CI that fails because of upstream issues, then I'm fine with ignoring this failure. But if someone wants to open a backport PR that fixes it, I'll be happy to review that. |
backport commits lgtm |
67af362
to
27cfda1
Compare
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.
utACK 27cfda1
Backport:
getrawchangeaddress
andgetnewaddress
failures should not affect keypools for descriptor wallets #29510