Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers #10593

luke-jr · 2017-06-14T21:42:09Z

Supercedes #10512 by simply restricting punishments to our outgoing non-feeler connections, and only punishing with a disconnect, not a ban.

This is necessary to avoid banning peers that merely run old formerly-full nodes, after a softfork. We disconnect primary peers because we want compatible full nodes for that role, but allow non-full nodes to remain connected to inbound slots so they can sync the correct chain from us.

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2

Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: ba51652

ajtowns · 2017-06-20T11:39:15Z

This seems like a reasonable approach to me; any idea why stop_node in the zapwallettxes test isn't getting a 0 exit code?

luke-jr · 2017-07-04T06:32:28Z

@ajtowns Not sure what you're asking? The tests are passing...

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2

ajtowns · 2017-07-05T02:56:35Z

I guess whatever I saw was a transient error then (or I was just confused)...

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801 Rebased-From: 09566ee

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2 Rebased-From: 73ad56d

Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: ba51652 Rebased-From: cf65248

jimpo · 2017-10-05T21:49:12Z

src/net_processing.cpp

@@ -865,10 +889,16 @@ void PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked(const CBlock& block, const CValidationSta
    if (state.IsInvalid(nDoS)) {
        // Don't send reject message with code 0 or an internal reject code.
        if (it != mapBlockSource.end() && State(it->second.first) && state.GetRejectCode() > 0 && state.GetRejectCode() < REJECT_INTERNAL) {
+            const NodeId node_id = it->second.first;
+            CNodeState * const nodestate = State(node_id);
            CBlockReject reject = {(unsigned char)state.GetRejectCode(), state.GetRejectReason().substr(0, MAX_REJECT_MESSAGE_LENGTH), hash};
            State(it->second.first)->rejects.push_back(reject);


nit: Use nodestate instead of State(it->second.first)

TheBlueMatt · 2017-10-05T22:16:36Z

Have we considered preferring a relatively short-time-period ban instead of purely disconnecting? If the peer is somehow braindead and tries to reconnect immediately we may prefer to keep them gone for 30 minutes or an hour instead of letting them get into some loop of connect-relay-disconnect.

sdaftuar · 2017-10-06T18:48:46Z

It seems like this reverts #8305 with no mechanism to replace that functionality. Rationale? This looks like a regression. NACK.

achow101 · 2017-10-07T16:16:37Z

It was mentioned during the IRC meeting that this already did what I am planning on doing in #11446. However this doesn't seem to cover the case that I am concerned about: receiving a header for a block we have already marked as invalid. In such a case, nDos will be 0 and thus the peer won't be punished for relaying us the duplicate header.

promag · 2017-10-16T16:04:03Z

test/functional/sendheaders.py

@@ -526,21 +526,6 @@ def run_test(self):
        # Remove the first two entries (blocks[1] would connect):
        blocks = blocks[2:]

-        # Now try to see how many unconnecting headers we can send


Test passes with the above changes.

practicalswift · 2018-11-04T21:43:21Z

test/functional/test_framework/mininode.py

+            listen_sock.listen(1)
+            listen_port = listen_sock.getsockname()[1]
+            self.rpc.addnode('127.0.0.1:%u' % (listen_port,), 'onetry', False)
+            (sock, addr) = listen_sock.accept()


Use (sock, _) = listen_sock.accept() to clarify that the second element in the tuple is discarded intentionally

sdaftuar

Re-NACK. While I generally agree with the high-level goals described in the OP, it's not clear what changes here are still necessary to achieve that goal -- several related PRs have been merged in the year it's been since this was originally opened. This PR also seems to break the bugfix made in #8305, without explanation or other handling, which seems unnecessary and unrelated to the overall goal of the PR. And the changes included in this PR seem disjointed (with comments not being updated to reflect new behavior, old nonsensical behavior left in cases that don't make sense, etc) -- presumably because the code changes here have gotten stale? I didn't bother leaving detailed comments in all those cases because after reviewing this, it's not at all clear to me what you're trying to accomplish.

I suggest this PR be closed; if there are any remaining changes that are still relevant and worth proposing, we can evaluate fresh in a new PR. If you think I'm mistaken, please give more detailed documentation and explanation of the reasoning behind these changes (for instance, why does the headers processing logic need to change at all? what cases are you trying to cover, and which cases are still left out?).

Also some of the testing-related changes are separately useful/interesting and warrant their own discussion. In particular I think supporting outbound peers that are not treated as "manual connections" for net processing purposes would be great, but I think those changes should be reviewed on their own -- I'd prefer we split those out into their own PR, rather than have them be an afterthought to support a test in a single PR.

luke-jr · 2018-11-06T02:01:01Z

#10593 (comment) ... you never explained how you think it breaks #8305

sdaftuar · 2018-11-06T13:10:36Z

@luke-jr The point of #8305 was to avoid giving DoS points to peers for the occasional unconnecting header. This PR would immediately disconnect an outbound peer when it announces a header that doesn't connect.

DrahtBot · 2018-11-09T03:51:03Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#15141 (Rewrite DoS interface between validation and net_processing by sdaftuar)
#14918 (RPCHelpMan: Check default values are given at compile-time by MarcoFalke)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

maflcko · 2019-02-12T23:59:53Z

feature_block.py fails on all travis jobs that run it

… check invalid header disconnection

…der invalid

… we're relying on them as a primary node

ajtowns · 2019-09-05T15:32:41Z

Probably should close this PR; it needs a pretty serious rebase, the RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE stuff from #15141 probably warrants some more thought about the approach which might not happen until we've got a consensus change to go with it, and the current approach has a NACK...

#12674 and the "nodo-to-test connections" support for mininode are probably relevant for #14210 though.

luke-jr · 2019-10-16T02:48:01Z

it needs a pretty serious rebase

Rebase is now complete. Push needs to wait for the PR to be reopened, but @sdaftuar is right that it should probably be split up and smaller changes merged first.

the RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE stuff from #15141 probably warrants some more thought about the approach which might not happen until we've got a consensus change to go with it,

Recent consensus changes shouldn't be (at least in this context) treated any differently than other consensus rules. You're looking at it in the limited scenario of a softfork, but it needs to be broader to ensure we overwrite/reorg any attempts to hardfork without consensus too.

This was referenced Jun 14, 2017

Rework same-chain from abusing DoS banning, to explicit checks #10512

Closed

-bip148 option #10532

Closed

fanquake added the P2P label Jun 15, 2017

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2017

Bugfix: Don't ban peers just because they have header chains we consi…

09566ee

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2017

Instead of DoS banning for invalid blocks, merely disconnect nodes if…

73ad56d

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2017

test/functional/sendheaders: Don't test for undesirable behaviour

cf65248

Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: ba51652

luke-jr mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2017

Instead of DoS banning for invalid blocks, merely disconnect nodes if we're relying on them as a primary node UASF/bitcoin#25

Merged

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jul 4, 2017

Bugfix: Don't ban peers just because they have header chains we consi…

92a61e2

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jul 4, 2017

Instead of DoS banning for invalid blocks, merely disconnect nodes if…

1ca3a2c

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2017

Bugfix: Don't ban peers just because they have header chains we consi…

e2728bc

…der invalid Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 6fda801 Rebased-From: 09566ee

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2017

Instead of DoS banning for invalid blocks, merely disconnect nodes if…

78b04b7

… we're relying on them as a primary node Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: 35433a2 Rebased-From: 73ad56d

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2017

test/functional/sendheaders: Don't test for undesirable behaviour

69a742b

Github-Pull: bitcoin#10593 Rebased-From: ba51652 Rebased-From: cf65248

jimpo reviewed Oct 5, 2017

View reviewed changes

laanwj modified the milestones: 0.15.1, 0.15.0.2 Oct 12, 2017

laanwj added this to Review priority 0.15.0.2 in High-priority for review Oct 12, 2017

promag reviewed Oct 16, 2017

View reviewed changes

laanwj added the Needs backport label Oct 19, 2017

laanwj removed this from the 0.15.0.2 milestone Oct 26, 2017

laanwj removed the Needs backport label Oct 26, 2017

laanwj removed this from Review priority 0.15.0.2 in High-priority for review Oct 26, 2017

luke-jr force-pushed the relax_invblk_punishment branch from 1bc31cd to c368643 Compare November 6, 2017 10:49

luke-jr force-pushed the relax_invblk_punishment branch 2 times, most recently from cdb29da to 1681988 Compare March 12, 2018 06:03

maflcko added the Needs rebase label Jun 6, 2018

luke-jr force-pushed the relax_invblk_punishment branch from 1681988 to dff2b8d Compare November 3, 2018 09:04

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Nov 3, 2018

practicalswift reviewed Nov 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

sdaftuar suggested changes Nov 5, 2018

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Nov 13, 2018

luke-jr force-pushed the relax_invblk_punishment branch from dff2b8d to 117775c Compare February 12, 2019 15:45

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Feb 12, 2019

maflcko added the Needs rebase label Feb 12, 2019

luke-jr added 7 commits April 2, 2019 07:03

RPC: Support addnode onetry without making the connection priviliged

cd961a4

QA/Mininode: Support node-to-test connections

2aa06bb

QA: p2p_unrequested_blocks: Use node-to-test / outgoing connection to…

b27caac

… check invalid header disconnection

Bugfix: Don't ban peers just because they have header chains we consi…

271e2b2

…der invalid

Instead of DoS banning for invalid blocks, merely disconnect nodes if…

0715007

… we're relying on them as a primary node

test/functional/p2p_sendheaders: Don't test for undesirable behaviour

e0699c0

QA/feature_block: Adapt disconnection tests for relaxed behaviour

2fff121

luke-jr force-pushed the relax_invblk_punishment branch from 117775c to 2fff121 Compare April 25, 2019 21:06

ajtowns mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2019

p2p: Disconnect peer that send us tx INVs when we opted out of tx relay #16682

Closed

jnewbery closed this Oct 10, 2019

laanwj removed the Needs rebase label Oct 24, 2019

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 16, 2021

Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers #10593

Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers #10593

luke-jr commented Jun 14, 2017 •

edited

ajtowns commented Jun 20, 2017

luke-jr commented Jul 4, 2017

ajtowns commented Jul 5, 2017

jimpo Oct 5, 2017

TheBlueMatt commented Oct 5, 2017

sdaftuar commented Oct 6, 2017 •

edited

achow101 commented Oct 7, 2017

promag Oct 16, 2017

practicalswift Nov 4, 2018

sdaftuar left a comment

luke-jr commented Nov 6, 2018 •

edited

sdaftuar commented Nov 6, 2018

DrahtBot commented Nov 9, 2018 •

edited

maflcko commented Feb 12, 2019

ajtowns commented Sep 5, 2019

luke-jr commented Oct 16, 2019

Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers #10593

Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers #10593

Conversation

luke-jr commented Jun 14, 2017 • edited

ajtowns commented Jun 20, 2017

luke-jr commented Jul 4, 2017

ajtowns commented Jul 5, 2017

jimpo Oct 5, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TheBlueMatt commented Oct 5, 2017

sdaftuar commented Oct 6, 2017 • edited

achow101 commented Oct 7, 2017

promag Oct 16, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

practicalswift Nov 4, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

sdaftuar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

luke-jr commented Nov 6, 2018 • edited

sdaftuar commented Nov 6, 2018

DrahtBot commented Nov 9, 2018 • edited

Conflicts

maflcko commented Feb 12, 2019

ajtowns commented Sep 5, 2019

luke-jr commented Oct 16, 2019

luke-jr commented Jun 14, 2017 •

edited

sdaftuar commented Oct 6, 2017 •

edited

luke-jr commented Nov 6, 2018 •

edited

DrahtBot commented Nov 9, 2018 •

edited