e2ff385e13 test: check for invalid `-prune` parameters (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This small PR adds missing test coverage for invalid `-prune` parameter values / combinations:
77e23ca945/src/init.cpp (L926-L928)77e23ca945/src/init.cpp (L935-L937)77e23ca945/src/init.cpp (L844-L849)
Not sure if the tests fit into `feature_config_args.py` or should rather be moved into `feature_pruning.py`; the latter though seems to be run less often due to being very memory-hungry.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK e2ff385e13
Tree-SHA512: bb0db98090058ecac9f8a01301634e9dba9a65fd56b6a0b770f88da28c4f01e240e22b1225f0d231e28bdd4b5b51bff0e6853cccc46ed0190e91b84f7954a9db
92885c4f69 test: Test for ApproximateBestSubset edge case with too little fees (Andrew Chow)
d9262324e8 wallet: Assert that enough was selected to cover the fees (Andrew Chow)
2de222c401 wallet: Use GetSelectionAmount for target value calculations (Andrew Chow)
Pull request description:
The `m_value` used for the target calculation in `ApproximateBestSubset` is incorrect, it should be `GetSelectionAmount`. This causes a bug that is only apparent when the minimum relay fee is set to be very high.
A test case is added for this, in addition to an assert in `CreateTransactionInternal` that would have also caught this issue if someone were able to hit the edge case.
Fixes#22670
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
utACK 92885c4f69
Tree-SHA512: bd61fa61ffb60873e097737eebea3afe8a42296ba429de9038b3a4706763b34de9409de6cdbab21ff7f51f4787b503f840873182d9c4a1d6e12a54b017953547
5fe8100ff3 Change the wallet_backup.py test to use the restorewallet RPC command instead of restoring wallets manually. (lsilva01)
ae23faba6f Add a new RPC command: restorewallet (lsilva01)
Pull request description:
As far as I know, there is no command to restore the wallet from a backup file.
The only way to do this is to replace the `wallet.dat` of a newly created wallet with the backup file, which is hardly an intuitive way.
This PR implements the `restorewallet` RPC command which restores the wallet from the backup file.
To test:
First create a backup file:
`$ bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet="wallet-01" backupwallet /home/Backups/wallet-01.bak`
Then restore it in another wallet:
`$ bitcoin-cli restorewallet "restored-wallet-01" /home/Backups/wallet-01.bak`
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK 5fe8100ff3
prayank23:
tACK 5fe8100ff3
meshcollider:
utACK 5fe8100ff3
Tree-SHA512: 9639df4d8ad32f255f5b868320dc69878bd9aceb3b471b49dfad500b67681e2d354292b5410982fbf18e25a44ed0c06fd4a0dd010e82807c2e00ff32e84047a1
d930c7f5b0 p2p, rpc, test: address rate-limiting follow-ups (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Incorporates review feedback in #22387.
Edit, could be considered separately: should a release note (or two) be added for 22.0? e.g. the new getpeerinfo fields in `Updated RPCs` and the rate-limiting itself in `P2P and network changes`.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK d930c7f5b0
theStack:
re-ACK d930c7f5b0🌮
Zero-1729:
crACK d930c7f
Tree-SHA512: b2101cad87f59c238603f38bd8e8df7a4d48929794e4de9e0e0ff2afa935a68475c2d369aa669d124a0bec2f50280fb47e8b980bde6ad812db08cf67b71c066a
ApproximateBestSubset had an edge case (due to not using
GetSelectionAmount) where it was possible for it to return success but
fail to select enough to cover transaction fees. A test is added that
could trigger this failure prior to the fix being implemented.
fafe896a0b test: Set regtest.BIP66Height = 102 to speed up tests (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
No need to waste time by forcing creation of more than 1000 blocks to get the benefits of being able to test BIP 66. Also, reducing the height makes it more likely that (third-party) tests are conforming to BIP 66, which is enforced on mainnet for all new blocks.
ACKs for top commit:
GeneFerneau:
Concept + code review ACK [fafe896](fafe896a0b)
0xB10C:
crACK fafe896a0b
laanwj:
ACK fafe896a0b
Zero-1729:
tACK fafe896
kristapsk:
ACK fafe896a0b. Full functional test suite showed few second speed incrase on my laptop (although I didn't do proper benchmarking with multiple runs, just single `time ./test/functional/test_runner.py` on current master vs this PR).
theStack:
Tested ACK fafe896a0b
hg333:
tACK fafe896a0b
Tree-SHA512: 4bbee3c8587d612e74a59fde49b6439c1296f2fc27d3a7cf59a35e920f729fdd581c930290bd04def618f81412236676ddb99b4ceb4d80dfb9fd610b128a04b1
accf3d5868 [test] mempool package ancestor/descendant limits (glozow)
2b6b26e57c [test] parameterizable fee for make_chain and create_child_with_parents (glozow)
313c09f7b7 [test] helper function to increase transaction weight (glozow)
f8253d69d6 extract/rename helper functions from rpc_packages.py (glozow)
3cd663a5d3 [policy] ancestor/descendant limits for packages (glozow)
c6e016aa13 [mempool] check ancestor/descendant limits for packages (glozow)
f551841d3e [refactor] pass size/count instead of entry to CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits (glozow)
97dd1c729d MOVEONLY: add helper function for calculating ancestors and checking limits (glozow)
f95bbf58aa misc package validation doc improvements (glozow)
Pull request description:
This PR implements a function to calculate mempool ancestors for a package and enforces ancestor/descendant limits on them as a whole. It reuses a portion of `CalculateMemPoolAncestors()`; there's also a small refactor to move the reused code into a generic helper function. Instead of calculating ancestors and descendants on every single transaction in the package and their ancestors, we use a "worst case" heuristic, treating every transaction in the package as each other's ancestor and descendant. This may overestimate everyone's counts, but is still pretty accurate in the our main package use cases, in which at least one of the transactions in the package is directly related to all the others (e.g. 1 parent + 1 child, multiple parents with 1 child, or chains).
Note on Terminology: While "package" is often used to describe groups of related transactions _within_ the mempool, here, I only use package to mean the group of not-in-mempool transactions we are currently validating.
#### Motivation
It would be a potential DoS vector to allow submission of packages to mempool without a proper guard for mempool ancestors/descendants. In general, the purpose of mempool ancestor/descendant limits is to limit the computational complexity of dealing with families during removals and additions. We want to be able to validate multiple transactions on top of the mempool, but also avoid these scenarios:
- We underestimate the ancestors/descendants during package validation and end up with extremely complex families in our mempool (potentially a DoS vector).
- We expend an unreasonable amount of resources calculating everyone's ancestors and descendants during package validation.
ACKs for top commit:
JeremyRubin:
utACK accf3d5
ariard:
ACK accf3d5.
Tree-SHA512: 0d18ce4b77398fe872e0b7c2cc66d3aac2135e561b64029584339e1f4de2a6a16ebab3dd5784f376e119cbafc4d50168b28d3bd95d0b3d01158714ade2e3624d
bb822a7af8 wallet, rpc: add listdescriptors private option (S3RK)
Pull request description:
Rationale: make it possible to backup your wallet with `listdescriptors` command
* The default behaviour is still to show public version
* For private version only the root xprv is returned
Example use-case:
```
> bitcoin-cli -regtest -named createwallet wallet_name=old descriptors=true
> bitcoin-cli -regtest -rpcwallet=old listdescriptors true | jq '.descriptors' > descriptors.txt
> bitcoin-cli -regtest -named createwallet wallet_name=new descriptors=true blank=true
> bitcoin-cli -regtest -rpcwallet=new importdescriptors "$(cat descriptors.txt)"
```
In case of watch-only wallet without private keys there will be following output:
```
error code: -4
error message:
Can't get descriptor string.
```
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK bb822a7af8
Rspigler:
tACK bb822a7af8
jonatack:
ACK bb822a7af8 per `git diff 2854ddc bb822a7`
prayank23:
tACK bb822a7af8
meshcollider:
Code review ACK bb822a7af8
Tree-SHA512: f6dddc72a74e5667071ccd77f8dce578382e8e29e7ed6a0834ac2e114a6d3918b59c2f194f4079b3259e13d9ba3b4f405619940c3ecb7a1a0344615aed47c43d
5a1bef60a0 test: refactor: remove binascii from test_framework (Zero-1729)
Pull request description:
This PR continues the work started in PR #22593, regarding using the `bytes` built-in module. In this PR specifically, instances of `binascii`'s methods `hexlify`, `unhexlify`, and `a2b_hex` have been replaced with the build-in `bytes` module's `hex` and `fromhex` methods where appropriate to make bytes <-> hex-string conversions consistent across the functional test files and test_framework.
Additionally, certain changes made are based on the following assumption:
```
bytes.hex(data) == binascii.hexlify(data).decode()
bytes.hex(data).encode() == binascii.hexlify(data)
```
Ran the functional tests to ensure behaviour is still consistent and changes didn't break existing tests.
closes#22605
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
Code-review ACK 5a1bef60a0🔢
Tree-SHA512: 8f28076cf0580a0d02a156f3e1e94c9badd3d41c3fbdfb2b87cd8a761dde2c94faa5f4c448d6747b1ccc9111c3ef1a1d7b42a11c806b241fa0410b7529e2445f
222290f543 test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest (MarcoFalke)
fac90c55be test: Create all blocks with version 4 or higher (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
BIP34 is active on the current tip of mainnet, so all miners must obey it. It would be nice if it also was active in fresh regtest instances from the earliest time possible.
I changed the BIP34 height to `2`, so that the block at height=1 may be used to mine a duplicate coinbase. (Needed to test mainnet behaviour)
This pull is done in two commits:
* test: Create all blocks with version 4 or higher:
Now that BIP34 is activated earlier, we need to create blocks with a higher version number. Just bump it to 4 instead of 2 to avoid having to bump it again later.
* test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest:
This fixes the BIP34 implementation in the tests (to match the one of the Core codebase) and updates the tests where needed
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK 222290f543
jonatack:
ACK 222290f543 tested and reviewed rebased to current master 5e213822f8
theStack:
Tested ACK 222290f543
Tree-SHA512: d69c637a62a64b8e87de8c7f0b305823d8f4d115c1852514b923625dbbcf9a4854b5bb3771ff41702ebf47c4c182a4442c6d7c0b9f282c95a34b83e56a73939b
82b6f89819 [style] Small style improvements to DNS parameters (Amiti Uttarwar)
4c89e24f64 [test] Test the delay before querying DNS seeds (Amiti Uttarwar)
6395c8ed56 [test] Test the interactions between -forcednsseed and -dnsseed (Amiti Uttarwar)
6f6b7df6bd [init] Disallow starting up with conflicting paramters for -dnsseed and -forcednsseed (Amiti Uttarwar)
26d0ffe4f2 [test] Test -forcednsseed causes querying DNS seeds (Amiti Uttarwar)
35851450a9 [test] Test the interactions between -connect and -dnsseed (Amiti Uttarwar)
75c05af361 [test] Test logic to query DNS seeds with block-relay-only connections (Amiti Uttarwar)
9c08719778 [test] Introduce test logic to query DNS seeds (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a DNS seed to the regtest chain params to enable testing the DNS seed querying logic of `CConnman::ThreadDNSAddressSeed` and relevant startup parameters. Adds coverage for the changes in #22013 (and then some).
The main behavioral change to bitcoind is that this PR disallows starting up with conflicting parameters for `-dnsseed` and `-forcednsseed`.
The tests include:
* parameter interactions of different combinations of `-connect`, `-dnsseed` and `-forcednsseed`
* the delay before querying DNS seeds depending on how many addresses are in the addrman
* the behavior of `-forcednsseed`
* skipping DNS querying if we have outbound full relay connections & not block-relay-only connections
Huge props to mzumsande for identifying the timing technique for testing successful connections before running `ThreadDNSAddressSeed` 🙌🏽
ACKs for top commit:
mzumsande:
ACK 82b6f89819
jnewbery:
reACK 82b6f89819
Tree-SHA512: 9f0c29bfbf99426727e79c0a25606ae09deab91a92e3c5cee7f84c3ca7503a8ac9ab85a85c51841d40b164ef8c991326070f0b2f41d075fb7985df26f6e95d6d
3f7250b328 [test] Use the new endpoint to improve tests (Amiti Uttarwar)
3893da06db [RPC] Add field to getpeerinfo to indicate if addr relay is enabled (Amiti Uttarwar)
0980ca78cd [test] Test that we intentionally select addr relay peers. (Amiti Uttarwar)
c061599e40 [net_processing] Remove RelayAddrsWithPeer function (Amiti Uttarwar)
201e496481 [net_processing] Introduce new field to indicate if addr relay is enabled (Amiti Uttarwar)
1d1ef2db7e [net_processing] Defer initializing m_addr_known (Amiti Uttarwar)
6653fa3328 [test] Update p2p_addr_relay test to prepare (Amiti Uttarwar)
2fcaec7bbb [net_processing] Introduce SetupAddressRelay (Amiti Uttarwar)
Pull request description:
This PR builds on the test refactors extracted into #22306 (first 5 commits).
This PR aims to reduce addr blackholes. When we receive an `addr` message that contains 10 or less addresses, we forward them to 1-2 peers. This is the main technique we use for self advertisements, so sending to peers that wouldn't relay would effectively "blackhole" the trickle. Although we cannot prevent this in a malicious case, we can improve it for the normal, honest cases, and reduce the overall likelihood of occurrence. Two known cases where peers would not participate in addr relay are if they have connected to you as a block-relay-only connection, or if they are a light client.
This implementation defers initialization of `m_addr_known` until it is needed, then uses its presence to decide if the peer is participating in addr relay. For outbound (not block-relay-only) peers, we initialize the filter before sending the initial self announcement when processing their `version` message. For inbound peers, we initialize the filter if/when we get an addr related message (`ADDR`, `ADDRV2`, `GETADDR`). We do NOT initialize the filter based on a `SENDADDRV2` message.
To communicate about these changes beyond bitcoin core & to (try to) ensure that no other software would be disrupted, I have:
- Posted to the [mailing list](https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018784.html)
- Researched other open source clients to confirm compatibility, opened issues in all the projects & documented in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21528#issuecomment-809906430. Many have confirmed that this change would not be problematic.
- Raised as topic during [bitcoin-core-dev meeting](https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2021-03-25.html#l-954)
- Raised as topic during [bitcoin p2p meeting](https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2021-04-20.html#l-439)
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK 3f7250b328
glozow:
ACK 3f7250b328
ajtowns:
utACK 3f7250b328
Tree-SHA512: 29069282af684c1cd37d107c395fdd432dcccb11626f3c2dabfe92fdc4c85e74c7c4056fbdfa88017fec240506639b72ac6c311f8ce7c583112eb15f47e421af
607076d01b test: remove confusing `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` (Sebastian Falbesoner)
4af97c74ed test: introduce `get_weight()` helper for CBlock (Sebastian Falbesoner)
a084ebe133 test: introduce `get_weight()` helper for CTransaction (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This is a very late follow-up PR to #10618, which removed the constant `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` from the core implementation about four years ago (see also #10608 in why it was considered confusing and superfluous).
Since there is also no point in still keeping it in the functional test framework, the PR switches to weight-based accounting on the relevant test code parts and use `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT` instead for the block limit checks. To prepare that, the first two commits introduce `get_weight()` helpers for the classes CTransaction and CBlock, respectively.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 607076d01b🚴
Tree-SHA512: d59aa0b6b3dfd0a849b8063e66de275d252f705f99e25cd3bf6daec028b47d946777ee5b42a060f5283cb18e917ac073119c2c0e11bbc21211f69ef0a6ed335a
8a2b58db9e test: fix segwit terminology (s/witness_program/witness_script/) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes wrong uses of the term "witness program", which according to [BIP141](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#Witness_program) is defined as follows:
> A scriptPubKey (or redeemScript as defined in BIP16/P2SH) that consists of a 1-byte push opcode (for 0 to 16) followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes gets a new special meaning. The value of the first push is called the "version byte". **The following byte vector pushed is called the "witness program".**
In most cases where "witness program" is used in tests (concerns comments, variable names and in one instance even a function name) what we really want to denote is the "witness script". Thanks to [MarcoFalke for pointing this out in a review comment](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22363#discussion_r666794261)!
Some historical background: At the time when the P2P segwit tests were first introduced (commit 330b0f31ee, PR #8149), the term "witness program" was not used consistently in BIP141: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/46451/what-is-the-precise-definition-of-witness-program
This was fixed in PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/416 later.
So in some way, this PR can be seen as a very late follow-up to the BIP141 fix that also reflects these changes in the tests.
ACKs for top commit:
josibake:
tACK 8a2b58db9e
Tree-SHA512: f36bb9e53d1b54b86bfa87ec12f33e3ebca64b5f59d97e9662fe35ba12c25e1c9a4f93a5425d0eaa3879dce9e50368d345555b927bfab76945511f873396892b
When starting up with a populated addrman, ThreadDNSAddressSeed adds a delay
during which time the node may be able to connect to some peers. This commit
tests the delay changes based on the number of addresses in the addrman.
Test that passing conflicting parameters for the two causes a startup error.
This logic also impacts -connect, which soft sets -dnsseed, so add a test for
that too.
When a node is able to properly shutdown, it will persist its block-relay-only
connections to the addrman. On startup, it will attempt to reconnect to these
anchors. Since block-relay-only connections do not participate in ADDR relay,
succesful connections are insufficient to skip querying the DNS seeds.
This test fails prior to the changes in #22013.
Co-authored-by: Martin Zumsande <mzumsande@gmail.com>
This commit introduces a DNS seed to the regest chain params in order to add
coverage to the DNS querying logic.
The first test checks that we do not query DNS seeds if we are able to
succesfully connect to 2 outbound connections. Since we participate in ADDR
relay with those connections, including sending a GETADDR message during the
VERSION handshake, querying the DNS seeds is unnecessary.
Co-authored-by: Martin Zumsande <mzumsande@gmail.com>
fanquake