-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 474
fix: process REPEAT_PROPOSAL block #9805
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
+140
−3
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
aff7f38
fix: process REPEAT_PROPOSAL block
twoeths 4ac0456
fix: do not record sentPeers metrics if skipPublish
twoeths 7c02c02
Merge branch 'unstable' into te/process_equivocation_block
twoeths f5b2b9b
fix: revert api change
twoeths c7d0c64
chore: add more comments
twoeths 5dcc6b0
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/unstable' into te/process_equivo…
twoeths d87bb3a
fix: merge issue
twoeths 09c5037
fix: revert unnecessary unit test
twoeths File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to revisit the ordering in
validateGossipBlock, so right now, if we throw aREPEAT_PROPOSALthat happens quite early, so the beacon block isn't fully validated here?also it's before this check
which seems questionable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the p2p rules are just quick checks to forward the gossip block without having to run state transition
if the block is really invalid, it should be caught inside the state transition itself
in this case it's
lodestar/packages/state-transition/src/block/processBlockHeader.ts
Line 27 in d9c16ea
it's worth to mention this in the code
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah that is probably fine was thinking the same way, but we should be more explicit about it, so adding a comment as suggested makes sense.
there was one worry that we could receive many invalid blocks and fill our cache but due to how gossip re-propagation works this should be unlikely unless a peer sends them directly to us, but I think we still wanna make sure that we at least validate the proposer signature in any case, although my worry here is that we run
blockState.getBeaconProposer(blockSlot) !== proposerIndexlater, so technically any validator can produce a valid signature (of course they would get slashed too if they do more >=2 so the incentives for doing so are low) and we downscore them, so it's likely fineThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it's already checked at line 718 above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah yeah that looks fine