The fs.* files are already part of the libbitcoin_util library. With the
introduction of the fs_helpers.* it makes sense to move fs.* into the
util/ directory as well.
7013da07fb Add release note for PR#25943 (David Gumberg)
04f270b435 Add test for unspendable transactions and parameter 'maxburnamount' to sendrawtransaction. (David Gumberg)
Pull request description:
This PR adds a user configurable, zero by default parameter — `maxburnamount` — to `sendrawtransaction`. This PR makes bitcoin core reject transactions that contain unspendable outputs which exceed `maxburnamount`. closes#25899.
As a result of this PR, `sendrawtransaction` will by default block 3 kinds of transactions:
1. Those that begin with `OP_RETURN` - (datacarriers)
2. Those whose lengths exceed the script limit.
3. Those that contain invalid opcodes.
The user is able to configure a `maxburnamount` that will override this check and allow a user to send a potentially unspendable output into the mempool.
I see two legitimate use cases for this override:
1. Users that deliberately use `OP_RETURN` for datacarrier transactions that embed data into the blockchain.
2. Users that refuse to update, or are unable to update their bitcoin core client would be able to make use of new opcodes that their client doesn't know about.
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
reACK 7013da07fb
achow101:
re-ACK 7013da07fb
Tree-SHA512: f786a796fb71a587d30313c96717fdf47e1106ab4ee0c16d713695e6c31ed6f6732dff6cbc91ca9841d66232166eb058f96028028e75c1507324426309ee4525
If a `submitpackage` RPC call errors due to any of the individual tx
broadcasts failing, the returned error message is supposed to contain
the number of successful broadcasts so far. Right now this is wrongly
always shown as zero. Fix this by adding the missing counting.
(Note though that the error should be really rare, as all txs have
already been submitted succesfully to the mempool.)
This value creates an extremely confusing interface as its existence is
dependent upon implementation details (whether something was submitted
on its own, etc). MempoolAcceptResult::m_effective_feerate is much more
helpful, as it always exists for submitted transactions.
47c4b1f52a mempool: log/halt when CalculateMemPoolAncestors fails unexpectedly (stickies-v)
5481f65849 mempool: add AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors helper function (stickies-v)
f911bdfff9 mempool: use util::Result for CalculateMemPoolAncestors (stickies-v)
66e028f739 mempool: use util::Result for CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits (stickies-v)
Pull request description:
Upon reviewing the documentation for `CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors`, I noticed `setAncestors` was meant to be an `out` parameter but actually is an `in,out` parameter, as can be observed by adding `assert(setAncestors.empty());` as the first line in the function and running `make check`. This PR fixes this unexpected behaviour and introduces refactoring improvements to make intents and effects of the code more clear.
## Unexpected behaviour
This behaviour occurs only in the package acceptance path, currently only triggered by `testmempoolaccept` and `submitpackage` RPCs.
In `MemPoolAccept::AcceptMultipleTransactions()`, we first call `PreChecks()` and then `SubmitPackage()` with the same `Workspace ws` reference. `PreChecks` leaves `ws.m_ancestors` in a potentially non-empty state, before it is passed on to `MemPoolAccept::SubmitPackage`. `SubmitPackage` is the only place where `setAncestors` isn't guaranteed to be empty before calling `CalculateMemPoolAncestors`. The most straightforward fix is to just forcefully clear `setAncestors` at the beginning of CalculateMemPoolAncestors, which is done in the first bugfix commit.
## Improvements
### Return value instead of out-parameters
This PR updates the function signatures for `CTxMemPool::CalculateMemPoolAncestors` and `CTxMemPool::CalculateAncestorsAndCheckLimits` to use a `util::Result` return type and eliminate both the `setAncestors` `in,out`-parameter as well as the error string. It simplifies the code and makes the intent and effects more explicit.
### Observability
There are 7 instances where we currently call `CalculateMemPoolAncestors` without actually checking if the function succeeded because we assume that it can't fail, such as in [miner.cpp](69b10212ea/src/node/miner.cpp (L399)). This PR adds a new wrapper `AssumeCalculateMemPoolAncestors` function that logs such unexpected failures, or in case of debug builds even halts the program. It's not crucial to the objective, more of an observability improvement that seems sensible to add on here.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 47c4b1f52a
w0xlt:
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26289/commits/47c4b1f52ab8d95d7deef83050bad49d1e3e5990
glozow:
ACK 47c4b1f52a
furszy:
light code review ACK 47c4b1f5
aureleoules:
ACK 47c4b1f52a
Tree-SHA512: d908dad00d1a5645eb865c4877cc0bae74b9cd3332a3641eb4a285431aef119f9fc78172d38b55c592168a73dae83242e6af3348815f7b37cbe2d448a3a58648
When CalculateMemPoolAncestors fails unexpectedly (e.g. it exceeds
ancestor/descendant limits even though we expect no limits to be applied),
add an error log entry for increased visibility. For debug builds,
the application will even halt completely since this is not supposed
to happen.
Simplifies function signatures by removing repetition of all the
ancestor/descendant limits, and increases readability by being
more verbose by naming the limits, while still reducing the LoC.
Our RBF policy is different from the rules specified in BIP125. For
example, the BIP does not mention Rule 6, and our Rule 4 uses the
(configurable) incremental relay feerate (distinct from the
minimum relay feerate). Those interested in our policy should refer to
doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md instead. These rules may also
continue to diverge with package RBF and other RBF improvements. Keep
references to the BIP125 signaling wrt sequence numbers, since that is
still correct and widely used. It is helpful to refer to this as "BIP125
signaling" since it is unambiguous and succint, especially if we have
multiple ways to signal replaceability in the future.
The rule numbers in doc/policy/mempool-replacements.md correspond
largely to those of BIP 125, so we can still refer to them like "Rule 5."
