11f3bc229c refactor: Reserve vectors in fuzz tests (Lőrinc)
152fefe7a2 refactor: Preallocate PrevectorFillVector(In)Direct without vector resize (Lőrinc)
a774c7a339 refactor: Fix remaining clang-tidy performance-inefficient-vector errors (Lőrinc)
Pull request description:
PR inspired by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29608#issuecomment-2437847307 (and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29458, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29606, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29607, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30093).
The `clang-tidy` check can be run via:
```bash
cmake -B build -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ -DCMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS=ON -DBUILD_BENCH=ON -DBUILD_FUZZ_BINARY=ON -DBUILD_FOR_FUZZING=ON && cmake --build build -j$(nproc)
run-clang-tidy -quiet -p build -j $(nproc) -checks='-*,performance-inefficient-vector-operation' | grep -v 'clang-tidy'
```
which revealed 3 tests and 1 prod warning (+ fuzz and benching, found by hebasto).
Even though the tests aren't performance critical, getting rid of these warnings (for which the checks were already enabled via https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-tidy#L18, see below), the fix was quite simple.
<details>
<summary>clang-tidy -list-checks</summary>
```bash
cd src && clang-tidy -list-checks | grep 'vector'
performance-inefficient-vector-operation
```
</details>
<details>
<summary>Output before the change</summary>
```
src/test/rpc_tests.cpp:434:9: error: 'emplace_back' is called inside a loop; consider pre-allocating the container capacity before the loop [performance-inefficient-vector-operation,-warnings-as-errors]
433 | for (int64_t i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
434 | feerates.emplace_back(1 ,1);
| ^
src/test/checkqueue_tests.cpp:366:13: error: 'emplace_back' is called inside a loop; consider pre-allocating the container capacity before the loop [performance-inefficient-vector-operation,-warnings-as-errors]
365 | for (size_t i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
366 | tg.emplace_back(
| ^
src/test/cuckoocache_tests.cpp:231:9: error: 'emplace_back' is called inside a loop; consider pre-allocating the container capacity before the loop [performance-inefficient-vector-operation,-warnings-as-errors]
228 | for (uint32_t x = 0; x < 3; ++x)
229 | /** Each thread is emplaced with x copy-by-value
230 | */
231 | threads.emplace_back([&, x] {
| ^
src/rpc/output_script.cpp:127:17: error: 'push_back' is called inside a loop; consider pre-allocating the container capacity before the loop [performance-inefficient-vector-operation,-warnings-as-errors]
126 | for (unsigned int i = 0; i < keys.size(); ++i) {
127 | pubkeys.push_back(HexToPubKey(keys[i].get_str()));
| ^
```
And the fuzz and benchmarks, noticed by hebasto: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31305#issuecomment-2483124499
</details>
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
review ACK 11f3bc229c🎦
achow101:
ACK 11f3bc229c
theuni:
ACK 11f3bc229c
hebasto:
ACK 11f3bc229c, tested with clang 19.1.5 + clang-tidy.
Tree-SHA512: 41691c19f35c63b922a95407617a54f9bff1af3f95f99d15642064f321df038aeb1ae5f061f854ed913f69036807cc28fa6222b2ff4c24ef43b909027fa0f9b3
c288c790cd interpreter: Use the same type for SignatureHash in the definition (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
This was missed during the original PR switching the nHashType argument to int32_t in SignatureHash in bc52cda1f3.
The problem was discovered after running into a linker error when attempting to link this code as a static library using the header as a declaration with a riscv32 bare metal toolchain. The compiler would error with:
```
/opt/riscv-ilp32/lib/gcc/riscv32-unknown-elf/13.2.0/../../../../riscv32-unknown-elf/bin/ld: build_kernel_riscv/src/libbitcoin_consensus.a(interpreter.cpp.o): in function `GenericTransactionSignatureChecker<CTransaction>::CheckECDSASignature(std::vector<unsigned char, std::allocator<unsigned char> > const&, std::vector<unsigned char, std::allocator<unsigned char> > const&, CScript const&, SigVersion) const':
/home/user/bitcoin/build_kernel_riscv/./script/interpreter.cpp:2043:(.text._ZNK34GenericTransactionSignatureCheckerI12CTransactionE19CheckECDSASignatureERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEES6_RK7CScript10SigVersion[_ZNK34GenericTransactionSignatureCheckerI12CTransactionE19CheckECDSASignatureERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEES6_RK7CScript10SigVersion]+0xee): undefined reference to `uint256 SignatureHash<CTransaction>(CScript const&, CTransaction const&, unsigned int, int, long long const&, SigVersion, PrecomputedTransactionData const*)'
```
With this patch it is possible to link against the static consensus library and produce a fully static executable.
ACKs for top commit:
l0rinc:
ACK c288c790cd
maflcko:
review ACK c288c790cd🐺
achow101:
ACK c288c790cd
theuni:
Obvious fix ACK c288c790cd.
BrandonOdiwuor:
Code Review ACK c288c790cd
Tree-SHA512: 74f283637f0a9cd0cab65d3502f2f8fc4fb983c7672f24e7a76ba2eb6e53b4a81cca0aacb610ef39ac0a454305be594ab440a697ae3718987bf5dbcbc7146a31
And under the hood suppoert single transactions
in AcceptPackage. This simplifies user experience
and paves the way for reducing number of codepaths
for transaction acceptance in the future.
Co-Authored-By: instagibbs <gsanders87@gmail.com>
* Since the main LIMITED_WHILE stated `outpoints.size() < 200'000`, I've presized outpoints accordingly.
* `tx_mut.vin` and `tx_mut.vout` weren't caught by the clang-tidy, but addressed them anyway.
This was missed during the original PR switching the nHashType argument
to int32_t in SignatureHash in bc52cda1f3.
The problem was discovered after running into a linker error when
attempting to link this code as a static library using the header as a
declaration with a riscv32 bare metal toolchain. The compiler would
error with:
/opt/riscv-ilp32/lib/gcc/riscv32-unknown-elf/13.2.0/../../../../riscv32-unknown-elf/bin/ld: build_kernel_riscv/src/libbitcoin_consensus.a(interpreter.cpp.o): in function `GenericTransactionSignatureChecker<CTransaction>::CheckECDSASignature(std::vector<unsigned char, std::allocator<unsigned char> > const&, std::vector<unsigned char, std::allocator<unsigned char> > const&, CScript const&, SigVersion) const':
/home/user/bitcoin/build_kernel_riscv/./script/interpreter.cpp:2043:(.text._ZNK34GenericTransactionSignatureCheckerI12CTransactionE19CheckECDSASignatureERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEES6_RK7CScript10SigVersion[_ZNK34GenericTransactionSignatureCheckerI12CTransactionE19CheckECDSASignatureERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEES6_RK7CScript10SigVersion]+0xee): undefined reference to `uint256 SignatureHash<CTransaction>(CScript const&, CTransaction const&, unsigned int, int, long long const&, SigVersion, PrecomputedTransactionData const*)'
The duplicate checks are repeated early in the contextual checks of
ProcessNewBlock. If duplicate blocks are detected much of their
validation is skipped. Depending on the constitution of the block,
validating the merkle root of the block is part of the more intensive
workload when validating a block. This could be an argument for moving
the pre-checks into block processing. In net_processing this would have
a smaller effect however, since the block mutation check, which also
validates the merkle root, is done before.
A side effect of this change is that a duplicate block is persisted
again on disk even when pruning is activated. This is similar to the
behaviour with getblockfrompeer. Add a release note for this change in
behaviour.
Testing spamming a node with valid, but duplicate unrequested blocks
seems to exhaust a CPU thread, but does not seem to significantly impact
keeping up with the tip. The benefits of adding these checks to
net_processing are questionable, especially since there are other ways
to trigger the more CPU-intensive checks without submitting a duplicate
block. Since these DOS concerns apply even less to the RPC interface,
which does not have banning mechanics built in, remove them too.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
ProcessNewBlock fails if an invalid duplicate block is passed in through
its call to AcceptBlock and AcceptBlockHeader. The failure in
AcceptBlockHeader makes AcceptBlock return early. This makes the
pre-check in submitblock redundant.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
The coinbase check is repeated again early during ProcessNewBlock.
Pre-checking it may also shadow more fundamental problems with a block.
In most cases the block header is checked first, before validating the
transactions. Checking the coinbase first therefore masks potential
issues with the header. Fix this by removing the pre-check.
The pre-check was likely introduced on top of
ada0caa165 to fix UB in
GetWitnessCommitmentIndex in case a block's transactions are empty. This
code path could only be reached because of the call to
UpdateUncommittedBlockStructures in submitblock, but cannot be reached
through net_processing.
Add some functional test cases to cover the previous conditions that
lead to a "Block does not start with a coinbase" json rpc error being
returned.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
92d3d691f0 fuzz: Implement G_TEST_GET_FULL_NAME (Hodlinator)
Pull request description:
Catching up to bench & unit tests. Makes for more orderly paths for fuzz tests using `BasicTestingSetup`.
### Before
```
/tmp/test_common bitcoin/0748ae43ef8fa80703bc/regtest/blocks/xor.dat
```
### After
```
/tmp/test_common bitcoin/tx_pool_standard/f18b3744625e0600eb0c/regtest/blocks/xor.dat
```
ACKs for top commit:
kevkevinpal:
ACK [92d3d69](92d3d691f0)
furszy:
utACK 92d3d691f0
tdb3:
ACK 92d3d691f0
dergoegge:
utACK 92d3d691f0
brunoerg:
code review ACK 92d3d691f0
Tree-SHA512: 5e83970b111232adece10f79e3a43d0c3c49ab635763e2a4b420f1336cbb8fee94aab751264ddec01ac8363166636e3b29cfe3b2969fc28c8dd6b31bda351950
9aa50152c1 Add destroy to BlockTemplate schema (Sjors Provoost)
Pull request description:
This ensures that if a client no longer needs a block template, the node can clear its memory as soon as possible.
A block template may hold on to transactions that are no longer in the mempool, so this can be significant.
This has a trivial silent merge conflict with #31283 because it also used the number `@9` (gaps are not allowed). I'll rebase whichever is merged last.
ACKs for top commit:
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 9aa50152c1
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9aa50152c1
Tree-SHA512: 393571b4455969cba71c7572feaeff4503738205331ab198b9181c156c75eb65933a8e5ceff66fc06d1efb8f2528bdb254e5eee7df75735b912526de1e7b166d
When BasicTestingSetup is used in fuzz-tests it will now create test directories containing the fuzz target names. Example:
/tmp/test_common bitcoin/tx_package_eval/153d7906294f7d0606a7/
This is already implemented for bench and unit tests.
5736d1ddac tracing: pass if replaced by tx/pkg to tracepoint (0xb10c)
a4ec07f194 doc: add comments for CTxMemPool::ChangeSet (Suhas Daftuar)
83f814b1d1 Remove m_all_conflicts from SubPackageState (Suhas Daftuar)
d3c8e7dfb6 Ensure that we don't add duplicate transactions in rbf fuzz tests (Suhas Daftuar)
d7dc9fd2f7 Move CalculateChunksForRBF() to the mempool changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
284a1d33f1 Move prioritisation into changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
446b08b599 Don't distinguish between direct conflicts and all conflicts when doing cluster-size-2-rbf checks (Suhas Daftuar)
b53041021a Duplicate transactions are not permitted within a changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
b447416fdd Public mempool removal methods Assume() no changeset is outstanding (Suhas Daftuar)
2b30f4d36c Make RemoveStaged() private (Suhas Daftuar)
18829194ca Enforce that there is only one changeset at a time (Suhas Daftuar)
7fb62f7db6 Apply mempool changeset transactions directly into the mempool (Suhas Daftuar)
34b6c5833d Clean up FinalizeSubpackage to avoid workspace-specific information (Suhas Daftuar)
57983b8add Move LimitMempoolSize to take place outside FinalizeSubpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
01e145b975 Move changeset from workspace to subpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
802214c083 Introduce mempool changesets (Suhas Daftuar)
87d92fa340 test: Add unit test coverage of package rbf + prioritisetransaction (Suhas Daftuar)
15d982f91e Add package hash to package-rbf log message (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
part of cluster mempool: #30289
It became clear while working on cluster mempool that it would be helpful for transaction validation if we could consider a full set of proposed changes to the mempool -- consisting of a set of transactions to add, and a set of transactions (ie conflicts) to simultaneously remove -- and perform calculations on what the mempool would look like if the proposed changes were to be applied. Two specific examples of where we'd like to do this:
- Determining if ancestor/descendant/TRUC limits would be violated (in the future, cluster limits) if either a single transaction or a package of transactions were to be accepted
- Determining if an RBF would make the mempool "better", however that idea is defined, both in the single transaction and package of transaction cases
In preparation for cluster mempool, I have pulled this reworking of the mempool interface out of #28676 so it can be reviewed on its own. I have not re-implemented ancestor/descendant limits to be run through the changeset, since with cluster mempool those limits will be going away, so this seems like wasted effort. However, I have rebased #28676 on top of this branch so reviewers can see what the new mempool interface could look like in the cluster mempool setting.
There are some minor behavior changes here, which I believe are inconsequential:
- In the package validation setting, transactions would be added to the mempool before the `ConsensusScriptChecks()` are run. In theory, `ConsensusScriptChecks()` should always pass if the `PolicyScriptChecks()` have passed and it's just a belt-and-suspenders for us, but if somehow they were to diverge then there could be some small behavior change from adding transactions and then removing them, versus never adding them at all.
- The error reporting on `CheckConflictTopology()` has slightly changed due to no longer distinguishing between direct conflicts and indirect conflicts. I believe this should be entirely inconsequential because there shouldn't be a logical difference between those two ideas from the perspective of this function, but I did have to update some error strings in some tests.
- Because, in a package setting, RBFs now happen as part of the entire package being accepted, the logging has changed slightly because we do not know which transaction specifically evicted a given removed transaction.
- Specifically, the "package hash" is now used to reference the set of transactions that are being accepted, rather than any single txid. The log message relating to package RBF that happen in the `TXPACKAGES` category has been updated as well to include the package hash, so that it's possible to see which specific set of transactions are being referenced by that package hash.
- Relatedly, the tracepoint logging in the package rbf case has been updated as well to reference the package hash, rather than a transaction hash.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
instagibbs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
ismaelsadeeq:
reACK 5736d1ddac
glozow:
ACK 5736d1ddac
Tree-SHA512: 21810872e082920d337c89ac406085aa71c5f8e5151ab07aedf41e6601f60a909b22fbf462ef3b735d5d5881e9b76142c53957158e674dd5dfe6f6aabbdf630b
a6ca8f3243 fuzz: Fix difficulty target generation in p2p_headers_presync (marcofleon)
fa327c77e3 util: Add ConsumeArithUInt256InRange fuzzing helper (marcofleon)
Pull request description:
In the `p2p_headers_presync` fuzz target, this assertion failed:
```
assert(total_work < chainman.MinimumChainWork());
```
Input that triggered the failure: [p2ppresync_crash.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/17620203/p2ppresync_crash.txt)
The test previously used `ConsumeIntegralInRange` to generate header difficulty targets within a hardcoded range. The fuzzer found specific values in that range that correspond to very low thresholds due to how [`SetCompact`][setcompact-link] works. The total work of a long enough test chain ended up exceeding `MinimumChainWork`.
Fix this by adding a new `ConsumeArithUInt256InRange` helper function and use it in the fuzz test to generate target values within the originally intended range. The target is then converted to an `nBits` value using `GetCompact()`.
For some more context, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30918.
[setcompact-link]: 6463117a29/src/arith_uint256.h (L251-L271)
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK a6ca8f3243
dergoegge:
Code review ACK a6ca8f3243
brunoerg:
code review ACK a6ca8f3243
Tree-SHA512: 92013d9d37bd3f11992ee678ba9745196efbdc4d773fd14994116629260bea46ffc9fa3923d443af7b623d39c6211900ce98a349c62ad1976e12312c37ef9df0
faaaf59f71 test: Make g_rng_temp_path rand, not dependent on SeedRandomForTest (MarcoFalke)
fa80b08fef test: Revert to random path element (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
The randomness in the path element is required to allow a single fuzz test to run in parallel. Previous releases used a uint256 random value, but 10 random bytes should be sufficient as well, while avoiding a `MAX_PATH` violation on Windows.
The issue was introduced by myself, by suggesting to use the current time in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31000#discussion_r1835351305.
ACKs for top commit:
kevkevinpal:
reACK faaaf59f71
hodlinator:
ACK faaaf59f71
tdb3:
re ACK faaaf59f71
dergoegge:
ACK faaaf59f71
Tree-SHA512: f12256c8b353618291030f71bf36eab97a25ffeaa28e36a5f2c6718dfc1fbbc8548c71475edec53d59026f2a779a05778db83f0530dd3e1d1faf6e4fc0ee7d70
