Merge pull request #6715

60de0d5 Fix mempool package tracking edge case (Suhas Daftuar)
598b25d Add test showing bug in mempool packages (Suhas Daftuar)

qa/rpc-tests/mempool_packages.py

@@ -15,22 +15,24 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
 
     def setup_network(self):
         self.nodes = []
-        self.nodes.append(start_node(0, self.options.tmpdir, ["-maxorphantx=1000", "-relaypriority=0"]))
+        self.nodes.append(start_node(0, self.options.tmpdir, ["-maxorphantx=1000", "-relaypriority=0", "-debug"]))
+        self.nodes.append(start_node(1, self.options.tmpdir, ["-maxorphantx=1000", "-relaypriority=0", "-limitancestorcount=5", "-debug"]))
+        connect_nodes(self.nodes[0], 1)
         self.is_network_split = False
         self.sync_all()
 
     # Build a transaction that spends parent_txid:vout
     # Return amount sent
-    def chain_transaction(self, parent_txid, vout, value, fee, num_outputs):
+    def chain_transaction(self, node, parent_txid, vout, value, fee, num_outputs):
         send_value = satoshi_round((value - fee)/num_outputs)
         inputs = [ {'txid' : parent_txid, 'vout' : vout} ]
         outputs = {}
         for i in xrange(num_outputs):
-            outputs[self.nodes[0].getnewaddress()] = send_value
-        rawtx = self.nodes[0].createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs)
-        signedtx = self.nodes[0].signrawtransaction(rawtx)
-        txid = self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(signedtx['hex'])
-        fulltx = self.nodes[0].getrawtransaction(txid, 1)
+            outputs[node.getnewaddress()] = send_value
+        rawtx = node.createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs)
+        signedtx = node.signrawtransaction(rawtx)
+        txid = node.sendrawtransaction(signedtx['hex'])
+        fulltx = node.getrawtransaction(txid, 1)
         assert(len(fulltx['vout']) == num_outputs) # make sure we didn't generate a change output
         return (txid, send_value)
 
@@ -46,7 +48,7 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
         # 100 transactions off a confirmed tx should be fine
         chain = []
         for i in xrange(100):
-            (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(txid, 0, value, fee, 1)
+            (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], txid, 0, value, fee, 1)
             value = sent_value
             chain.append(txid)
 
@@ -69,10 +71,12 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
 
         # Adding one more transaction on to the chain should fail.
         try:
-            self.chain_transaction(txid, vout, value, fee, 1)
+            self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], txid, vout, value, fee, 1)
         except JSONRPCException as e:
             print "too-long-ancestor-chain successfully rejected"
 
+        # TODO: check that node1's mempool is as expected
+
         # TODO: test ancestor size limits
 
         # Now test descendant chain limits
@@ -82,7 +86,7 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
 
         transaction_package = []
         # First create one parent tx with 10 children
-        (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(txid, vout, value, fee, 10)
+        (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], txid, vout, value, fee, 10)
         parent_transaction = txid
         for i in xrange(10):
             transaction_package.append({'txid': txid, 'vout': i, 'amount': sent_value})
@@ -90,7 +94,7 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
         for i in xrange(1000):
             utxo = transaction_package.pop(0)
             try:
-                (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(utxo['txid'], utxo['vout'], utxo['amount'], fee, 10)
+                (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], utxo['txid'], utxo['vout'], utxo['amount'], fee, 10)
                 for j in xrange(10):
                     transaction_package.append({'txid': txid, 'vout': j, 'amount': sent_value})
                 if i == 998:
@@ -101,7 +105,74 @@ class MempoolPackagesTest(BitcoinTestFramework):
                 assert_equal(i, 999)
                 print "tx that would create too large descendant package successfully rejected"
 
+        # TODO: check that node1's mempool is as expected
+
         # TODO: test descendant size limits
 
+        # Test reorg handling
+        # First, the basics:
+        self.nodes[0].generate(1)
+        sync_blocks(self.nodes)
+        self.nodes[1].invalidateblock(self.nodes[0].getbestblockhash())
+        self.nodes[1].reconsiderblock(self.nodes[0].getbestblockhash())
+
+        # Now test the case where node1 has a transaction T in its mempool that
+        # depends on transactions A and B which are in a mined block, and the
+        # block containing A and B is disconnected, AND B is not accepted back
+        # into node1's mempool because its ancestor count is too high.
+
+        # Create 8 transactions, like so:
+        # Tx0 -> Tx1 (vout0)
+        #   \--> Tx2 (vout1) -> Tx3 -> Tx4 -> Tx5 -> Tx6 -> Tx7
+        #
+        # Mine them in the next block, then generate a new tx8 that spends
+        # Tx1 and Tx7, and add to node1's mempool, then disconnect the
+        # last block.
+
+        # Create tx0 with 2 outputs
+        utxo = self.nodes[0].listunspent()
+        txid = utxo[0]['txid']
+        value = utxo[0]['amount']
+        vout = utxo[0]['vout']
+
+        send_value = satoshi_round((value - fee)/2)
+        inputs = [ {'txid' : txid, 'vout' : vout} ]
+        outputs = {}
+        for i in xrange(2):
+            outputs[self.nodes[0].getnewaddress()] = send_value
+        rawtx = self.nodes[0].createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs)
+        signedtx = self.nodes[0].signrawtransaction(rawtx)
+        txid = self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(signedtx['hex'])
+        tx0_id = txid
+        value = send_value
+
+        # Create tx1
+        (tx1_id, tx1_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], tx0_id, 0, value, fee, 1)
+
+        # Create tx2-7
+        vout = 1
+        txid = tx0_id
+        for i in xrange(6):
+            (txid, sent_value) = self.chain_transaction(self.nodes[0], txid, vout, value, fee, 1)
+            vout = 0
+            value = sent_value
+
+        # Mine these in a block
+        self.nodes[0].generate(1)
+        self.sync_all()
+
+        # Now generate tx8, with a big fee
+        inputs = [ {'txid' : tx1_id, 'vout': 0}, {'txid' : txid, 'vout': 0} ]
+        outputs = { self.nodes[0].getnewaddress() : send_value + value - 4*fee }
+        rawtx = self.nodes[0].createrawtransaction(inputs, outputs)
+        signedtx = self.nodes[0].signrawtransaction(rawtx)
+        txid = self.nodes[0].sendrawtransaction(signedtx['hex'])
+        sync_mempools(self.nodes)
+        
+        # Now try to disconnect the tip on each node...
+        self.nodes[1].invalidateblock(self.nodes[1].getbestblockhash())
+        self.nodes[0].invalidateblock(self.nodes[0].getbestblockhash())
+        sync_blocks(self.nodes)
+
 if __name__ == '__main__':
     MempoolPackagesTest().main()

src/txmempool.cpp

@@ -159,17 +159,15 @@ void CTxMemPool::UpdateTransactionsFromBlock(const std::vector<uint256> &vHashes
     }
 }
 
-bool CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors(const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry, setEntries &setAncestors, uint64_t limitAncestorCount, uint64_t limitAncestorSize, uint64_t limitDescendantCount, uint64_t limitDescendantSize, std::string &errString)
+bool CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors(const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry, setEntries &setAncestors, uint64_t limitAncestorCount, uint64_t limitAncestorSize, uint64_t limitDescendantCount, uint64_t limitDescendantSize, std::string &errString, bool fSearchForParents /* = true */)
 {
     setEntries parentHashes;
     const CTransaction &tx = entry.GetTx();
 
+    if (fSearchForParents) {
         // Get parents of this transaction that are in the mempool
-    // Entry may or may not already be in the mempool, and GetMemPoolParents()
-    // is only valid for entries in the mempool, so we iterate mapTx to find
-    // parents.
-    // TODO: optimize this so that we only check limits and walk
-    // tx.vin when called on entries not already in the mempool.
+        // GetMemPoolParents() is only valid for entries in the mempool, so we
+        // iterate mapTx to find parents.
         for (unsigned int i = 0; i < tx.vin.size(); i++) {
             txiter piter = mapTx.find(tx.vin[i].prevout.hash);
             if (piter != mapTx.end()) {
@@ -180,6 +178,12 @@ bool CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors(const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry, setEntr
                 }
             }
         }
+    } else {
+        // If we're not searching for parents, we require this to be an
+        // entry in the mempool already.
+        txiter it = mapTx.iterator_to(entry);
+        parentHashes = GetMemPoolParents(it);
+    }
 
     size_t totalSizeWithAncestors = entry.GetTxSize();
 
@@ -249,7 +253,24 @@ void CTxMemPool::UpdateForRemoveFromMempool(const setEntries &entriesToRemove)
         setEntries setAncestors;
         const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry = *removeIt;
         std::string dummy;
-        CalculateMemPoolAncestors(entry, setAncestors, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, dummy);
+        // Since this is a tx that is already in the mempool, we can call CMPA
+        // with fSearchForParents = false.  If the mempool is in a consistent
+        // state, then using true or false should both be correct, though false
+        // should be a bit faster.
+        // However, if we happen to be in the middle of processing a reorg, then
+        // the mempool can be in an inconsistent state.  In this case, the set
+        // of ancestors reachable via mapLinks will be the same as the set of 
+        // ancestors whose packages include this transaction, because when we
+        // add a new transaction to the mempool in addUnchecked(), we assume it
+        // has no children, and in the case of a reorg where that assumption is
+        // false, the in-mempool children aren't linked to the in-block tx's
+        // until UpdateTransactionsFromBlock() is called.
+        // So if we're being called during a reorg, ie before
+        // UpdateTransactionsFromBlock() has been called, then mapLinks[] will
+        // differ from the set of mempool parents we'd calculate by searching,
+        // and it's important that we use the mapLinks[] notion of ancestor
+        // transactions as the set of things to update for removal.
+        CalculateMemPoolAncestors(entry, setAncestors, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, nNoLimit, dummy, false);
         // Note that UpdateAncestorsOf severs the child links that point to
         // removeIt in the entries for the parents of removeIt.  This is
         // fine since we don't need to use the mempool children of any entries

src/txmempool.h

@@ -392,8 +392,10 @@ public:
      *  limitDescendantCount = max number of descendants any ancestor can have
      *  limitDescendantSize = max size of descendants any ancestor can have
      *  errString = populated with error reason if any limits are hit
+     *  fSearchForParents = whether to search a tx's vin for in-mempool parents, or
+     *    look up parents from mapLinks. Must be true for entries not in the mempool
      */
-    bool CalculateMemPoolAncestors(const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry, setEntries &setAncestors, uint64_t limitAncestorCount, uint64_t limitAncestorSize, uint64_t limitDescendantCount, uint64_t limitDescendantSize, std::string &errString);
+    bool CalculateMemPoolAncestors(const CTxMemPoolEntry &entry, setEntries &setAncestors, uint64_t limitAncestorCount, uint64_t limitAncestorSize, uint64_t limitDescendantCount, uint64_t limitDescendantSize, std::string &errString, bool fSearchForParents = true);
 
     unsigned long size()
     {