222290f543 test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest (MarcoFalke)
fac90c55be test: Create all blocks with version 4 or higher (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
BIP34 is active on the current tip of mainnet, so all miners must obey it. It would be nice if it also was active in fresh regtest instances from the earliest time possible.
I changed the BIP34 height to `2`, so that the block at height=1 may be used to mine a duplicate coinbase. (Needed to test mainnet behaviour)
This pull is done in two commits:
* test: Create all blocks with version 4 or higher:
Now that BIP34 is activated earlier, we need to create blocks with a higher version number. Just bump it to 4 instead of 2 to avoid having to bump it again later.
* test: Set BIP34Height = 2 for regtest:
This fixes the BIP34 implementation in the tests (to match the one of the Core codebase) and updates the tests where needed
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK 222290f543
jonatack:
ACK 222290f543 tested and reviewed rebased to current master 5e213822f8
theStack:
Tested ACK 222290f543
Tree-SHA512: d69c637a62a64b8e87de8c7f0b305823d8f4d115c1852514b923625dbbcf9a4854b5bb3771ff41702ebf47c4c182a4442c6d7c0b9f282c95a34b83e56a73939b
607076d01b test: remove confusing `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` (Sebastian Falbesoner)
4af97c74ed test: introduce `get_weight()` helper for CBlock (Sebastian Falbesoner)
a084ebe133 test: introduce `get_weight()` helper for CTransaction (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This is a very late follow-up PR to #10618, which removed the constant `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` from the core implementation about four years ago (see also #10608 in why it was considered confusing and superfluous).
Since there is also no point in still keeping it in the functional test framework, the PR switches to weight-based accounting on the relevant test code parts and use `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT` instead for the block limit checks. To prepare that, the first two commits introduce `get_weight()` helpers for the classes CTransaction and CBlock, respectively.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 607076d01b🚴
Tree-SHA512: d59aa0b6b3dfd0a849b8063e66de275d252f705f99e25cd3bf6daec028b47d946777ee5b42a060f5283cb18e917ac073119c2c0e11bbc21211f69ef0a6ed335a
The constant `MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE` has been removed from the
core implementation years ago due to being confusing and
superfluous, as it is implied by the block weight limit (see
PRs #10618 and #10608). Since there is also no point in
still keeping it in the functional test framework, we switch
to weight-based accounting on the relevant test code parts
and use `MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT` instead for the block limit
checks.
1) Makes the code for block 44 consistent with the expected figure in
the comment above it by adding a transaction to the block
2) Fixed comment describing sign_tx() function
Use object returned from add_p2p_connection to refer to
p2ps. Add a test class attribute if it needs to be used across
many methods. Don't use the p2p property.
substitutes "for x in range(N):" by "for _ in range(N):"
indicates to the reader that a block is just repeated N times, and
that the loop counter is not used in the body
7a6627ae87 Fix mining to an invalid target + ensure that a new block has the correct hash internally in Python tests (Samer Afach)
Pull request description:
Test with block 47 in the `feature_block.py` creates a block with a hash higher than the target, which is supposed to fail. Now two issues exist there, and both have low probability of showing up:
1. The creation is done with `while (hash < target)`, which is wrong, because hash = target is a valid mined value based on the code in the function `CheckProofOfWork()` that validates the mining target:
```
if (UintToArith256(hash) > bnTarget)
return false;
```
2. As we know the hash stored in CBlock class in Python is stateful, unlike how it's in C++, where calling `CBlock::GetHash()` will actively calculate the hash and not cache it anywhere. With this, blocks that come out of the method `next_block` can have incorrect hash value when `solve=False`. This is because the `next_block` is mostly used with `solve=True`, and solving does call the function `rehash()` which calculates the hash of the block, but with `solve=False`, nothing calls that method. And since the work to be done in regtests is very low, the probably of this problem showing up is very low, but it practically happens (well, with much higher probability compared to issue No. 1 above).
This PR fixes both these issues.
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: f3b54d18f5073d6f1c26eab89bfec78620dda4ac1e4dde4f1d69543f1b85a7989d64c907e091db63f3f062408f5ed1e111018b842819ba1a5f8348c7b01ade96
The function implementing segwit v0 signature hash was originally named
SegwitVersion1SignatureHash() (presumably before segwit v0 was named
segwit v0). Rename it to SegwitV0SignatureHash().
Also rename SignatureHash() to LegacySignatureHash() for disambiguation.
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
fa8489a155 test: Add test for BIP30 duplicate tx (MarcoFalke)
77770d95e2 test: Properly serialize BIP34 coinbase height (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This adds a test for BIP30 to check that duplicate txs can exist in the blockchain given the first one was completely spent when the second one is added. (Requested by ajtowns in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16333#issuecomment-508604071)
We can not add a test that a later duplicate tx overwrites a previous one, because BIP30 is always enforced on regtest. If someone feels strongly about such a test, some Bitcoin Core code would have to be modified, which can be done in a follow up pull request.
Also, add a commit to fix the BIP34 test failures reported in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14633#issue-227712540
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK fa8489a155
Tree-SHA512: c707d0bdc93937263876b603425b53322a2a9f9ec3f50716ae2fa9de8ddc644beb22b26c1bfde7f4aab102633e096b354ef380db919176bd2cb44a2828f884aa
