24d2d3341d QA: wallet_multiwallet: Check that recursive symlink directory and wallet.dat loops are ignored (Luke Dashjr)
69f59af54d Bugfix: Wallet: Soft-fail exceptions within ListWalletDir file checks (Luke Dashjr)
Pull request description:
Previously, an exception would be thrown, which could kill the node in some circumstances.
Includes test changes to cause failure.
Review with `?w=1`
ACKs for top commit:
hebasto:
re-ACK 24d2d3341d, rebased only since my [previous](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19502#pullrequestreview-520552944) review.
promag:
Tested ACK 24d2d3341d, test change fails on master.
meshcollider:
utACK 24d2d3341d
Tree-SHA512: f701f81b3aa3d3e15cee52ac9e7c31a73c0d8166e56bf077235294507cbcee099829fedc432a1c4b6d8780885f4e37897b44b980b08125771de3c849c000499e
5e146022da wallet: fix scanning progress calculation for single block range (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
If the blockchain is rescanned for a single block (i.e. start and stop hashes are equal, and with that also the estimated start/stop verification progress values) the progress calculation could lead to a NaN value caused by a division by zero (0.0/0.0), resulting in an invalid JSON result for the `getwalletinfo` RPC. This PR fixes this behaviour by setting the progress to zero in that special case. Fixes#20297.
The behaviour can easily be reproduced by continuously running single block rescans in an endless loop, e.g. via
```bash
#!/bin/bash
while true
do
bitcoin-cli rescanblockchain $(bitcoin-cli getblockcount)
done
```
and at the same time perform some `getwalletinfo` RPCs.
On the master branch, this leads to frequent invalid responses (tested on mainchain):
```
$ bitcoin-cli getwalletinfo
error: couldn't parse reply from server
$ curl --user `cat ~/.bitcoin/.cookie` --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id": "curltest", "method": "getwalletinfo", "params": []}' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/
{"result":{"walletname":"","walletversion":169900,"format":"bdb","balance":0.00000000,"unconfirmed_balance":0.00000000,"immature_balance":0.00000000,"txcount":0,"keypoololdest":1603677276,"keypoolsize":1000,"hdseedid":"3196e33ecb47c7130e6ca60f2f895f9259860dca","keypoolsize_hd_internal":1000,"paytxfee":0.00000000,"private_keys_enabled":true,"avoid_reuse":false,"scanning":{"duration":0,"progress":},"descriptors":false},"error":null,"id":"curltest"}
```
(note that missing value for "progress" in the JSON result).
On the PR branch, the behaviour doesn't occur anymore.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 5e146022da
promag:
Core review ACK 5e146022da.
Tree-SHA512: f0e6aad5a6cd08b36c5fe820fff0ef26663229b39169a4dbe757f3c795a41cf5c69c9dc90efe7515675ae1059307f8971123781a0514d10704123a6f28b125ab
Create a fee_rate (sat/vB) RPC param and replace overloading the conf_target and
estimate_mode params in the following 6 RPCs with it:
- sendtoaddress
- sendmany
- send
- fundrawtransaction
- walletcreatefundedpsbt
- bumpfee
In RPC bumpfee, the previously existing fee_rate remains but the unit is changed
from BTC/kvB to sat/vB. This is a breaking change, but it should not be an
overly risky one, as the units change by a factor of 1e5 and any fees specified
in BTC/kvB after this commit will either be too low and raise an error or be 1
sat/vB and can be RBFed.
Update the test coverage for each RPC.
Co-authored-by: Murch <murch@murch.one>
If the blockchain is rescanned for a single block (i.e. start and stop hashes
are equal, and with that also the estimated verification progress) the progress
calculation could lead to a NaN value caused by a division by zero, resulting in
an invalid JSON result for the getwalletinfo RPC. Fixed by setting the progress
to zero in that special case.
Co-authored-by: MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
This is the start of some nontrivial wallet refactoring by achow. See
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/Wallet-Class-Structure-Changes
for a high-level design.
This PR moves some stuff out of CWallet into a dummy "box" LegacyScriptPubKeyMan
which is (currently) very tightly coulped to CWallet. Because of the coupling there
are currently null-checks that cannot fail, things which assume non-nullness which
will eventually be wrong, and a plethora of currently-equivalent ways to get from
a CWallet to a provider or back.
Our approach is basically to ignore the refactoring; leave the blinding key stuff
in CWallet and have it call into the wallet's provider when we are obtaining the
underlying keys.
Later, probably in a post-rebase PR, we should rethink how we manage blinding keys
to more closely match Core's "all keys go into providers" model.
