-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 315
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
fix: ignore forkchoice invalidations if latestValidHash not found #6361
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## unstable #6361 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 60.14% 60.13% -0.01%
============================================
Files 407 407
Lines 46485 46487 +2
Branches 1545 1545
============================================
Hits 27957 27957
- Misses 18496 18498 +2
Partials 32 32 |
Performance Report✔️ no performance regression detected Full benchmark results
|
wemeetagain
requested changes
Jan 27, 2024
packages/beacon-node/src/chain/blocks/verifyBlocksExecutionPayloads.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
wemeetagain
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2024
Merged
philknows
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2024
* v1.15.1 * fix: ignore stale keystore lockfiles (#6363) * fix: ignore stale keystore lockfiles * Update error message if lockfile is already acquired * Update keymanager lockfile e2e tests * fix: ignore forkchoice invalidations if latestValidHash not found (#6361) * fix: ignore forkchoice invalidations if latestValidHash not found * rename for better understanding * update the lvh search start index * apply feedback * fix: parse --blindedLocal flag value as boolean (#6403) --------- Co-authored-by: Nico Flaig <nflaig@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: g11tech <develop@g11tech.io>
🎉 This PR is included in v1.16.0 🎉 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Handle nullish LVH (latest valid hash), either null or not found, as if the LVH is "unknown" rather than the more strict interpretation that the LVH "doesn't exist".
In the case that the LVH "doesn't exist" it makes sense to mark the ancestor chain as invalid. This was the thinking behind our behavior befor this PR.
However, the spec says that the EL can return a
null
LVH if the EL "cannot determine" the LVH. In practice, a lazy (or buggy) EL may returnnull
LVH, or even an LVH that doesn't exist in our fork choice.To more robustly handle this case, as well as the case where the returned LVH cannot be found, we should simply throw and move on, rather than invalidating any ancestors.
If latest valid hash is not found (owing to odd LVH from the EL,
null
or otherwise), we shouldn't invalidate any blocks in the fork choice, since without latestValidHash, we might incorrectly be invalidating a (valid) parent block of the invalid payload being imported.This was found based on an incident revolving around besu response:
ref: