Send repairman shreds to the repair socket

[sagar-solana]

Problem

Repairman protocol sends shreds to a node's TVU. The node then sends those shreds through Turbine causing unnecessary packet duplication and traffic.

Summary of Changes

Advertise the repair socket in Contact Info. Send repairman responses to the repair socket so that Validators don't send them through turbine again.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6671 into master will increase coverage by 2%.
The diff coverage is 78.2%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #6671     +/-   ##
========================================
+ Coverage    68.1%   70.2%     +2%     
========================================
  Files         220     213      -7     
  Lines       47864   46480   -1384     
========================================
+ Hits        32638   32656     +18     
+ Misses      15226   13824   -1402

[aeyakovenko]

@sagar-solana this is easily broken. Any validators can change this code and send the shreds to a different socket. We need to do a turbine path check and mark the packet as sent.

[sagar-solana]

@sagar-solana this is easily broken. Any validators can change this code and send the shreds to a different socket. We need to do a turbine path check and mark the packet as sent.

Yeah this obviously doesn't fix the security aspect that we're already aware of. It also doesn't make it worse. It does however help with some of the networking issues we've had. I feel like we need this now and when we have the turbine path lookup we can fix it.

Also repairman clearly needs its own thing since it's targeted. It's only for this node and should not be turbine bound in anyway. For now since we already filter out repair responses, the fix was to send repairman shreds to the same addr.

[aeyakovenko]

Is there a security issue tracking it? Can you make it a blocker for slp1? It would be trivial to dos the network otherwise and no way to detect it.

[sagar-solana]

@aeyakovenko done!
#6672

[sagar-solana]

Does this look ok for the time being @aeyakovenko ?