This was a scary-looking refactor but basically what it does is move all the
local variables from AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker into a class Workspace, so
that the method can be broken down into multiple steps.
The only Elements change required (beyond obvious conflict resolution) was
to also move the local variable setPeginsSpent into the class, and to rename
it m_set_pegins_spent for consistency. There were also multiple loops over
transaction inputs and it was important to make sure all the Elements pegin
logic went into the right ones, to preserve the control flow. This was
annoying because of all the whitespace changes in the PR but not too hard.
FIXME: we disable standardness checks for the non-PAK node in the PAK tests.
This is because of a bug in Elements which causes non-PAK nodes to reject
pegouts for standardness reasons. Need to fix it after the rebase.
c4b0c08f7c Update tx-size-small comment with relevant CVE disclosure (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Code first introduced under https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11423 with essentially no description and no discussion.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
fanquake:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
Tree-SHA512: 95d5c92998b8b1e944c477dbaee265b62612b6e815099ab31d9ff580b4dff777abaf7f326a284644709f918aa1510412d62310689b1250ef6e64de7b19ca9f71
4a87c5cfdf [refactor] Rewrite AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker() using smaller parts (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
This is in preparation for re-using these validation components for a new version of AcceptToMemoryPool() that can operate on multiple transactions ("package relay").
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 4a87c5cfdf (did the rebase myself and arrived at the same result, mod whitespace)
laanwj:
ACK 4a87c5cfdf
Tree-SHA512: b0495c026ffe06146258bace3d5e0c9aaf23fa65f89f258abc4af5980812e68e63a799f1d923e78ac1ee6bcafaf1222b2c2690a527df9b65dff7b48a013f154e
0c62e3aa73 New regression testing for CVE-2018-17144, CVE-2012-2459, and CVE-2010-5137. (lucash-dev)
38bfca6bb2 Added comments referencing multiple CVEs in tests and production code. (lucash-dev)
Pull request description:
This functional test includes two scenarios that test for regressions of vulnerabilities, but they are only briefly described. There are freely available documents explaining in detail the issues, but without explicit mentions, the developer trying to maintain the code needs an additional step of digging in commit history and PR conversations to figure it out.
Added comments to explicitly mention CVE-2018-17144 and CVE-2012-2459, for more complete documentation.
This improves developer experience by making understanding the tests easier.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 0c62e3aa73, checked the CVE numbers, thanks for adding documentation
Tree-SHA512: 3ee05351745193b8b959e4a25d50f25a693b2d24b0732ed53cf7d5882df40b5dd0f1877bd5c69cffb921d4a7acf9deb3cc1160b96dc730d9b5984151ad06b7c9
This is in preparation for re-using these validation components for a new
version of AcceptToMemoryPool() that can operate on multiple transactions
("package relay").
