Refactored native NeoToken cache scheme introduced in #3110 sometimes requires
validators list recalculation during native cache initialization process (when
initializing with the existing storage from the block that is preceded each N-th block).
To recalculate validators from candidates, native NeoToken needs an access to
cached native Policy blocked accounts. By the moment of native Neo initialization,
the cache of native Policy is not yet initialized, thus we need a direct DAO access
for Policy to handle blocked account check.
Close#3181.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
This section contains genesis-related settings including genesis-related or natives-related
extensions. Currently it includes the set of node roles that may be designated
duing the native Designation contract initialisation.
Close#3156.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
And rename roles.go to role.go to match the role_string.go and the
existing naming pattern for enums.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
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>
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>
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>
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>
Make the contracts cache initialization unified. The order of cache
iniitialization is not important and Nottary contract is added to the
bc.contracts.Contracts wrt P2PSigExtensions setting, thus no functional
changes, just refactoring for future applications.
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <shaleva.ann@nspcc.ru>
Everywhere including examples, external interop APIs, bindings generators
code and in other valuable places. A couple of `interface{}` usages are
intentionally left in the CHANGELOG.md, documentation and tests.
d5a9af5860 is incompatible with the NeoFS
mainnet sidechain, so we add the old logic to the pre-Aspidochelone
behaviour. Changing flags at newMethodAndPrice() is a bit less convenient
unfortunately because this will affect interop validity checks, so let's have
this kludge here.
And include some node-specific configurations there with backwards
compatibility. Note that in the future we'll remove Ledger's
fields from the ProtocolConfiguration and it'll be possible to access them in
Blockchain directly (not via .Ledger).
The other option tried was using two configuration types separately, but that
incurs more changes to the codebase, single structure that behaves almost like
the old one is better for backwards compatibility.
Fixes#2676.
It doesn't store id->hash mappings for native contracts. We need blockchain's
GetContractScriptHash to serve both anyway, so it was changed a bit. The only
other direct user of native.GetContractScriptHash is the VM CLI, but I doubt
anyone will use it for native contracts (they have ~zero VM code anyway).
Follow neo-project/neo#2807. Notice that this data is not cached, our previous
implementation wasn't too and it shouldn't be a problem (not on the hot path).
We don't use all of the Stack functionality for it, so drop useless methods
and avoid some interface conversions. It increases single-node TPS by about
0.9%, so nothing really important there, but not a bad change either. Maybe it
can be reworked again with generics though.
Bad contract -> no contract. Unfortunately we've got a broken
6f1837723768f27a6f6a14452977e3e0e264f2cc contract on the mainnet which can't
be decoded (even though it had been saved successfully), so this is a
temporary fix for #2801 to be able to start mainnet node after shutdown.
There is a security issue found in github.com/btcsuite/btcd that we don't care
about (we're only using 256k1 implementation), but GitHub complains about
it. We could update to github.com/btcsuite/btcd/btcec/v2, but it's now just a
thin wrapper over github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4, so we better use
it directly.
