*: support extra dBFT stage #118
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
a2d89af to
01f9e6c
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #118 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 63.31% 59.35% -3.96%
==========================================
Files 27 32 +5
Lines 1510 1823 +313
==========================================
+ Hits 956 1082 +126
- Misses 489 661 +172
- Partials 65 80 +15 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
3460b23 to
942dd05
Compare
doubiliu
reviewed
Jul 17, 2024
It will be reused by anti-MEV related dBFT interfaces implementations. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
890c324 to
7d7004b
Compare
pre_block.go
Outdated
| Data() []byte // required | ||
| // SetData generates and sets PreBlock's data CNs need to exchange during Commit | ||
| // phase. | ||
| SetData(key PrivateKey) error // required |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What exactly do you want? GetData instead of Data?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Usually getters/setters mean that something is wrong with the interface. Likely SetData can be avoided.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then it’s wrong with the old implementation because the logic is the same as for our old Commit.SetSignature() and Commit.Signature(). Need to check, maybe we can pass signature directly to the Commit constructor.
1966e0a to
659de52
Compare
Ref. #112. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
438f9df to
d5baa08
Compare
Add custom PreBlock and Block interfaces implementation, custom Commit and CommitAck, adjust testing logic. Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Technically, this is implied by d.ResponseSent(), but we still have BlockSent() check as well, so these don't hurt. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
It's done at the start of OnReceive() and it's even more strict there. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
It's a security event, this should never happen and we better know if it does. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
It's useless, we log tx number down below anyway. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Commit payloads can't be checked with PrepareRequest data only in AMEV case, we don't yet have a complete header. So check them after we have enough PreCommit payloads. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Be a bit more optimistic about the message (similar to how onPrepareResponse() works). Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Supposedly AMEV code will do its magic here and it doesn't need to do it twice. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
For a single height/view there is a single proper hash and it's not a final block hash, likely logging it won't help much. Can be done in future if needed, but let's have view number for now. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
start() was designed to be called at every view change, but looks like it _never_ worked this way. Which means two things: * on every view change Primary doesn't send PrepareRequest during initialization (which is mostly OK, OnTimeout() will be triggered immediately with 0 timeout) * our future message caching system has never really worked since start() is the only place where messages can be picked up from it Just drop start(), make caches work and add a test for them. Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
d5baa08 to
2fca051
Compare
roman-khimov
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
AliceInHunterland
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
AnnaShaleva
commented
Aug 6, 2024
Closed
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
Problem:
Inappropriate message in the WatchOnly node logs with NeoXAMEV extension
enabled:
```
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 INFO dbft@v0.3.1/dbft.go:545 received PreCommit {"validator": 5}
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 DEBUG dbft@v0.3.1/check.go:90 can't send commit since self preCommit not yet sent
```
Based on these logs it may seem that WatchOnly is trying (or will try)
to send Commit. It must never happen, hence I dived into the library
code and discovered the condition that was added mostly for safety and
that was planned to be removed in future:
https://github.com/nspcc-dev/dbft/blob/7c005d93e4b47106b679e3cc55d182f8167e0e56/check.go#L82-L84
Ref. #118 (comment).
So the problem is in the invalid documentaiton and in improper log
message.
It should be noted that for non-WatchOnly CNs we also need to keep
and check PreCommitSent requirement because node's Commit must be
confirmed by previousely sent PreCommit.
Solution:
Strictly speaking, this commit almost doesn't change the dBFT behaviour
because WatchOnly node is not allowed to send Commit thanks to the
condition outlined above. But we'd better adjust the comment and don't
confuse the library users with inappropriate message.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
Problem:
Inappropriate message in the WatchOnly node logs with NeoXAMEV extension
enabled:
```
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 INFO dbft@v0.3.1/dbft.go:545 received PreCommit {"validator": 5}
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 DEBUG dbft@v0.3.1/check.go:90 can't send commit since self preCommit not yet sent
```
Based on these logs it may seem that WatchOnly is trying (or will try)
to send Commit. It must never happen, hence I dived into the library
code and discovered the condition that was added mostly for safety and
that was planned to be removed in future:
https://github.com/nspcc-dev/dbft/blob/7c005d93e4b47106b679e3cc55d182f8167e0e56/check.go#L82-L84
Ref. #118 (comment).
So the problem is in the invalid documentaiton and in improper log
message.
It should be noted that for non-WatchOnly CNs we also need to keep
and check PreCommitSent requirement because node's Commit must be
confirmed by previousely sent PreCommit.
Solution:
Strictly speaking, this commit almost doesn't change the dBFT behaviour
because WatchOnly node is not allowed to send Commit thanks to the
condition outlined above. But we'd better adjust the comment and don't
confuse the library users with inappropriate message.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
AnnaShaleva
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2024
Problem:
Inappropriate message in the WatchOnly node logs with NeoXAMEV extension
enabled:
```
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 INFO dbft@v0.3.1/dbft.go:545 received PreCommit {"validator": 5}
2024-12-05T15:15:54.366+0300 DEBUG dbft@v0.3.1/check.go:90 can't send commit since self preCommit not yet sent
```
Based on these logs it may seem that WatchOnly is trying (or will try)
to send Commit. It must never happen, hence I dived into the library
code and discovered the condition that was added mostly for safety and
that was planned to be removed in future:
https://github.com/nspcc-dev/dbft/blob/7c005d93e4b47106b679e3cc55d182f8167e0e56/check.go#L82-L84
Ref. #118 (comment).
So the problem is in the invalid documentaiton and in improper log
message.
It should be noted that for non-WatchOnly CNs we also need to keep
and check PreCommitSent requirement because node's Commit must be
confirmed by previousely sent PreCommit.
Solution:
Strictly speaking, this commit almost doesn't change the dBFT behaviour
because WatchOnly node is not allowed to send Commit thanks to the
condition outlined above. But we'd better adjust the comment and don't
confuse the library users with inappropriate message.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
WIP, just something I have on hands right now, need to test it and integrate with NeoGo/NeoX nodes.
TODO:
Ref. #112.