If it's the end of epoch, then it contains the updated validators list recalculated
during the last block's PostPersist. If it's middle of the epoch, then it contains
previously calculated value (value for the previous completed epoch) that is equal
to the current nextValidators cache value.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Do not recalculate new committee/validators value in the start of every
subsequent epoch. Use values that was calculated in the PostPersist method
of the previously processed block in the end of the previous epoch.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
No funcional changes, just refactoring. It doesn't need the whole cache,
only the set of committee keys with votes.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Recalculate them once per epoch. Consensus is aware of it and must
call CalculateNextValidators exactly when needed.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
We have two similar blockchain APIs: GetNextBlockValidators and GetValidators.
It's hard to distinguish them, thus renaming it to match the meaning, so what
we have now is:
GetNextBlockValidators literally just returns the top of the committee that
was elected in the start of batch of CommitteeSize blocks batch. It doesn't
change its valie every block.
ComputeNextBlockValidators literally computes the list of validators based on
the most fresh committee members information got from the NeoToken's storage
and based on the latest register/unregister/vote events. The list returned by
this method may be updated every block.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Blockchain passes his own pure unwrapped DAO to
(*Blockchain).ComputeNextBlockValidators which means that native
RW NEO cache structure stored inside this DAO can be modified by
anyone who uses exported ComputeNextBlockValidators Blockchain API,
and technically it's valid, and we should allow this, because it's
the only purpose of `validators` caching. However, at the same time
some RPC server is allowed to request a subsequent wrapped DAO for
some test invocation. It means that descendant wrapped DAO
eventually will request RW NEO cache and try to `Copy()`
the underlying's DAO cache which is in direct use of
ComputeNextBlockValidators. Here's the race:
ComputeNextBlockValidators called by Consensus service tries to
update cached `validators` value, and descendant wrapped DAO
created by the RPC server tries to copy DAO's native cache and
read the cached `validators` value.
So the problem is that native cache not designated to handle
concurrent access between parent DAO layer and derived (wrapped)
DAO layer. I've carefully reviewed all the usages of native cache,
and turns out that the described situation is the only place where
parent DAO is used directly to modify its cache concurrently with
some descendant DAO that is trying to access the cache. All other
usages of native cache (not only NEO, but also all other native
contrcts) strictly rely on the hierarchical DAO structure and don't
try to perform these concurrent operations between DAO layers.
There's also persist operation, but it keeps cache RW lock taken,
so it doesn't have this problem as far. Thus, in this commit we rework
NEO's `validators` cache value so that it always contain the relevant
list for upper Blockchain's DAO and is updated every PostPersist (if
needed).
Note: we must be very careful extending our native cache in the
future, every usage of native cache must be checked against the
described problem.
Close#2989.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
To dump the DB, the service must be stopped.
If this is not the case `dump` command just hangs without any output,
which _may_ be unexpected from the ops POV.
Introduce a 1 second timeous, which is more than enough, given
that bbolt retries doing flock() every 50ms.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <fyfyrchik@runbox.com>
It can be non-zero even if VoteTo is NULL. Fixes state diff with 3.6.0:
block 41660: value mismatch for key +////xTrvgat3qG/w8hQoD/I4MgUz6rygA==: QQQhAS8hA7yiAAAhAA== vs QQQhAS8hA7yiAAAhB+POSWfBCAE=
Related to #2844.
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
IterateVerifiedTransactions iterates through verified transactions in
memory pool and invokes function cont. Where cont callback returns
whether we should continue with the traversal process.
Signed-off-by: Tatiana Nesterenko <tatiana@nspcc.io>
Do not retrieve the whole set of storage items when trying to find
the ones from the specified start. Use DAO's Seek interface
implemented over MPT TrieStore to retrieve only the necessary items.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
So that hardfork name was explicitly present in the test name. We'll
have a set of similar tests later.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
No functional changes, just a refactoring.
Change error text to be able to use this error from external packages.
Signed-off-by: Tatiana Nesterenko <tatiana@nspcc.io>
No functional changes, just a refactoring.
Use more specific and meaningful names to be able to use these errors from external packages.
Signed-off-by: Tatiana Nesterenko <tatiana@nspcc.io>
During new transaction verification if there's an on-chain conflicting
transaction, we should check the signers of this conflicting transaction.
If the signers intersect with signers of the incoming transaction, then
the conflict is treated as valid and verification for new incoming
transaction should fail. Otherwise, the conflict is treated as the
malicious attack attempt and will not be taken into account;
verification for the new incoming transaction should continue.
This commint implements the scheme described at
https://github.com/neo-project/neo/pull/2818#issuecomment-1632972055,
thanks to @shargon for digging.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Witnesses are not yet created by the moment we return this error,
thus, it was always 0 as an actual number of witnesses in
ErrInvalidWitnessNum.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
`(*Blockchain).HasTransaction` is one of the oldest methods in our
codebase, and currently it's completely unused. I also doubt that
this method works as expected because it returns `true` if transaction
in the mempool.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Ensure that Scopes can be properly parsed not only from the string
representation, but also from a single byte. transaction.Signer
is not affected (checked against the C# implementation), only
RPC-related signer scopes are allowed to be unmarshalled from byte.
Close#3059.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
This check is good and was present here since #1729, but it was
accidently removed from the reference implementation (see the
discussion in https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2848). The
removal of this check from the C# node leaded to the T5 testnet state
diff since 1670095 heigh which causes inability to process new blocks
since 2272533 height (see #3049). This check was added back to the
C# node in https://github.com/neo-project/neo/pull/2849, but it is
planned to be the part of the upcoming 3.6.0 C# node release.
We need to keep our testnet healthy, thus, strict contract script
check will be temporary removed from the node code and is planned
to be added back to be a part of the next 3.6.0-compatible release.
Close#3049.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Our wrapping optimization relied on the caller context having a TRY block,
but each context (including internal calls!) has an exception handling stack
of its own, which means that for an invocation stack of
entry
A.someMethodFromEntry() # this one has a TRY
A.internalMethodViaCALL() # this one doesn't
B.someMethod()
we get `HasTryBlock() == false` for `A.internalMethodViaCALL()` context, which
leads to missing wrapper and missing rollbacks if B is to THROW. What this
patch does instead is it checks for any context within contract boundaries.
Fixes#3045.
Signed-off-by: Roman Khimov <roman@nspcc.ru>
That's the way how C# node handles equality checks for stackitem.Interop types
for these points. Ref. https://github.com/nspcc-dev/neo-go/issues/3002#issuecomment-1591220501.
Along the way, add GT case for CryptoLib's bls12381Equal method. It should be there since #2940.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
