CVE-2021-31876 child transactions do not inherit rbf signaling

[instagibbs]

The original issue reported at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018893.html and at https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-31876 seems to be unresolved in the codebase, and there are no open issues to track this, so I'm opening one.

[maflcko]

Have you seen #22209 ?

[maflcko]

Also, there is both a test for this (#22210) and documentation (#21946), so I am pretty sure this issue can be closed?

The original issue reported at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018893.html and at https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-31876 seems to be unresolved in the codebase, and there are no open issues to track this, so I'm opening one.

Are the downstream projects still not aware of the default RBF policy implemented in bitcoin core? Particularly after #21946 that MarcoFalke shared

[instagibbs]

I don't think issues should be closed unless this is a wont-fix situation...?

[maflcko]

How is it not a duplicate of #22209 ?

[instagibbs]

misread my thread of emails as I woke, it is

[instagibbs]

well technically, the issue you linked is claiming the issue is that getmempoolentry is correctly identifying bip125 replaceability as per spec, we should make sure we track the issue that we're not actually conforming...

[maflcko]

Happy to change the title or description if you have suggestions?

[instagibbs]

as long as the issue isn't closed until we fix inherited signaling or decide we won't fix, it's fine, thanks