mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git
synced 2025-02-02 09:46:52 -05:00
Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#15545: [doc] explain why CheckBlock() is called before AcceptBlock
3d552b0d78
[doc] explain why CheckBlock() is called before AcceptBlock() (Sjors Provoost) Pull request description: Based on https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html and its PDF attachment. ACKs for top commit: MarcoFalke: cr ACK3d552b0d78
Tree-SHA512: d1ef39855317853e0e7e051ec6015054d0d227fcdf20281c2c1921056537f1f79044aa1bdd35f46475edd17596fbcae79aeb338c4865b1269a01b158f6cb2ac4
This commit is contained in:
commit
a748782a11
1 changed files with 5 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -3605,8 +3605,11 @@ bool ChainstateManager::ProcessNewBlock(const CChainParams& chainparams, const s
|
|||
// Therefore, the following critical section must include the CheckBlock() call as well.
|
||||
LOCK(cs_main);
|
||||
|
||||
// Ensure that CheckBlock() passes before calling AcceptBlock, as
|
||||
// belt-and-suspenders.
|
||||
// Skipping AcceptBlock() for CheckBlock() failures means that we will never mark a block as invalid if
|
||||
// CheckBlock() fails. This is protective against consensus failure if there are any unknown forms of block
|
||||
// malleability that cause CheckBlock() to fail; see e.g. CVE-2012-2459 and
|
||||
// https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html. Because CheckBlock() is
|
||||
// not very expensive, the anti-DoS benefits of caching failure (of a definitely-invalid block) are not substantial.
|
||||
bool ret = CheckBlock(*block, state, chainparams.GetConsensus());
|
||||
if (ret) {
|
||||
// Store to disk
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue