Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman #6426

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024
Merged

fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman #6426

merged 1 commit into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

PastaPastaPasta
Copy link
Member

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

in #6148, I broke the functionality where a peer must opt in / opt out of DSQUEUE messages. This was mostly ok, and not immediately detected, as with this bug, simply everyone would receive DSQ messages over inventory (or classically, old proto versions were not affected by this bug). But this still would result in quite a bit of wasted bandwidth for peers which may not care about DSQ at all.

What was done?

This commit should restore the prior functionality, where a node should send the SENDDSQUEUE message if they wish to receive DSQs. Once they've sent that, depending on their protocol version, they will either have the messages pushed to them as available, or on modern protocols, they will thereafter receive DSQs over the inventory system.

NOTE: I also refactor the code in this commit, moving some network proccessing into.... wait for it... net_processing.cpp! This allowed us to remove some dependencies in coinjoin.h. DSQ messages are now relayed to peers by calling peer_manager.RelayDSQ

How Has This Been Tested?

I have not yet mixed on testnet with this; we should include it in rc.2 and test

Breaking Changes

Slightly breaking for v22.0.x (so rc.1), as they in theory could be relying on this new logic of always receiving the DSQ inv. But I don't think anyone besides core is using this new protocol.

Checklist:

Go over all the following points, and put an x in all the boxes that apply.

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta added this to the 22 milestone Nov 22, 2024
@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

UdjinM6
UdjinM6 requested changes Nov 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 

[potential_deadlock_detected] POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED
Previous lock order was:
 (2) 'm_nodes_mutex' in net.h:1383 (in thread 'scheduler')
 (1) 'm_peer_mutex' in net_processing.cpp:1681 (in thread 'scheduler')
Current lock order is:
 'NetEventsInterface::g_msgproc_mutex' in net.cpp:3976 (in thread 'msghand')
 (1) 'm_peer_mutex' in net_processing.cpp:2292 (in thread 'msghand')
 (2) 'm_nodes_mutex' in net.cpp:5102 (in thread 'msghand')

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the fix-respect-SendDSQUEUE-message branch from 22bad37 to e97372d Compare November 22, 2024 22:49
UdjinM6
UdjinM6 reviewed Nov 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
src/net_processing.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@PastaPastaPasta
fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing …
dafa736 
…/ peerman

in 6148, I broke the functionality where a peer must opt in / opt out of DSQUEUE messages. This was mostly ok, and not immediately detected, as with this bug, simply everyone would receive DSQ messages over inventory (or classically, old proto versions were not affected by this bug). But this still would result in quite a bit of wasted bandwidth for peers which may not care about DSQ at all.

This commit should restore the prior functionality, where a node should send the SENDDSQUEUE message if they wish to receive DSQs. Once they've sent that, depending on their protocol version, they will either have the messages pushed to them as available, or on modern protocols, they will thereafter receive DSQs over the inventory system.

NOTE: I also refactor the code in this commit, moving some network proccessing into.... wait for it... net_processing.cpp! This allowed us to remove some dependencies in coinjoin.h. DSQ messages are now relayed to peers by calling peer_manager.RelayDSQ
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta force-pushed the fix-respect-SendDSQUEUE-message branch from e97372d to dafa736 Compare November 23, 2024 06:01
UdjinM6
UdjinM6 approved these changes Nov 23, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

light ACK dafa736

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta requested review from knst and kwvg November 24, 2024 20:32
kwvg
kwvg approved these changes Nov 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwvg kwvg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK dafa736

knst
knst approved these changes Nov 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@knst knst left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM dafa736

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 0cb7485 into dashpay:develop Nov 26, 2024
22 of 25 checks passed
knst pushed a commit to knst/dash that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024
@PastaPastaPasta @knst
Merge dashpay#6426: fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay …
72cff78 
…into net processing / peerman

dafa736 fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman (pasta)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  in dashpay#6148, I broke the functionality where a peer must opt in / opt out of DSQUEUE messages. This was mostly ok, and not immediately detected, as with this bug, simply everyone would receive DSQ messages over inventory (or classically, old proto versions were not affected by this bug). But this still would result in quite a bit of wasted bandwidth for peers which may not care about DSQ at all.

  ## What was done?
  This commit should restore the prior functionality, where a node should send the SENDDSQUEUE message if they wish to receive DSQs. Once they've sent that, depending on their protocol version, they will either have the messages pushed to them as available, or on modern protocols, they will thereafter receive DSQs over the inventory system.

  NOTE: I also refactor the code in this commit, moving some network proccessing into.... wait for it... net_processing.cpp! This allowed us to remove some dependencies in coinjoin.h. DSQ messages are now relayed to peers by calling peer_manager.RelayDSQ

  ## How Has This Been Tested?
  I have not yet mixed on testnet with this; we should include it in rc.2 and test

  ## Breaking Changes
  Slightly breaking for v22.0.x (so rc.1), as they in theory could be relying on this new logic of always receiving the DSQ inv. But I don't think anyone besides core is using this new protocol.

  ## Checklist:
    _Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._
  - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

ACKs for top commit:
  UdjinM6:
    light ACK dafa736
  kwvg:
    utACK dafa736

Tree-SHA512: 18f9b0dfe05cde19db451653db9bb9a00352efd1bc37adffd83f74958010475f2782b1111b1c0d2dd967e7a851c3c4795fa55033b4bd0cc810aa293e754ce314
knst pushed a commit to knst/dash that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024
@PastaPastaPasta @knst
Merge dashpay#6426: fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay …
18f636f 
…into net processing / peerman

dafa736 fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman (pasta)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
  in dashpay#6148, I broke the functionality where a peer must opt in / opt out of DSQUEUE messages. This was mostly ok, and not immediately detected, as with this bug, simply everyone would receive DSQ messages over inventory (or classically, old proto versions were not affected by this bug). But this still would result in quite a bit of wasted bandwidth for peers which may not care about DSQ at all.

  ## What was done?
  This commit should restore the prior functionality, where a node should send the SENDDSQUEUE message if they wish to receive DSQs. Once they've sent that, depending on their protocol version, they will either have the messages pushed to them as available, or on modern protocols, they will thereafter receive DSQs over the inventory system.

  NOTE: I also refactor the code in this commit, moving some network proccessing into.... wait for it... net_processing.cpp! This allowed us to remove some dependencies in coinjoin.h. DSQ messages are now relayed to peers by calling peer_manager.RelayDSQ

  ## How Has This Been Tested?
  I have not yet mixed on testnet with this; we should include it in rc.2 and test

  ## Breaking Changes
  Slightly breaking for v22.0.x (so rc.1), as they in theory could be relying on this new logic of always receiving the DSQ inv. But I don't think anyone besides core is using this new protocol.

  ## Checklist:
    _Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._
  - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone

ACKs for top commit:
  UdjinM6:
    light ACK dafa736
  kwvg:
    utACK dafa736

Tree-SHA512: 18f9b0dfe05cde19db451653db9bb9a00352efd1bc37adffd83f74958010475f2782b1111b1c0d2dd967e7a851c3c4795fa55033b4bd0cc810aa293e754ce314
PastaPastaPasta added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 26, 2024
@PastaPastaPasta
Merge #6432: [v22.0.x] backport: release v22.0.0-rc2
a6ee725 
8b88ff7 Merge #6414: chore: bump seeds for v22 (pasta)
02ad523 Merge #6411: chore: update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid, checkpointData, chainTxData for mainnet and testnet (pasta)
3bbcd3d Merge #6393: docs: mention building for some HOSTs only in `release-process.md` (pasta)
18f636f Merge #6426: fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman (pasta)
9fed456 Merge #6407: fix: dataraces (pasta)
86105da Merge #6408: refactor: removed pre-MN_RR logic of validation of CL (pasta)
a1f7e96 Merge #6406: ci: use `actions/cache` to manage depends cache (pasta)
90a3807 Merge #6402: ci: cache built (pasta)
66f6787 Merge #6401: ci: deduplicate depends building (pasta)
7ca5663 Merge #6397: ci: add powerpc64 to GH Guix job matrix (pasta)

Pull request description:

  ## What was done?
  See commits for each particular change

  ## How Has This Been Tested?
  To be deployed on testnet

  ## Breaking Changes
  N/A

  ## Checklist:
  - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  - [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_

ACKs for top commit:
  UdjinM6:
    utACK 8b88ff7
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK 8b88ff7

Tree-SHA512: f7fac62996873503e7de875cc96d9cdf5675674345f1bb1df4a16bf19bddc17bc395a80cc761363a0121022d42c46fb313b0973b9cc71f568ef55c6b3d9e29d8
PastaPastaPasta added a commit to PastaPastaPasta/dash that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2024
@PastaPastaPasta
Merge dashpay#6484: chore: Merge master 22.0.0 back into develop
779e429 
1c7bfcb chore: set release true (pasta)
c90339e Merge dashpay#6459: docs: add release notes for v22.0.0 (pasta)
a6f1fc5 Merge dashpay#6475: chore: bumped chain assumed sizes based on latest usage (pasta)
d7cd9f1 Merge dashpay#6464: chore: update man pages for v22 (pasta)
212f91c Merge dashpay#6461: docs: update supported versions in SECURITY.md (pasta)
9a8b685 Merge dashpay#6460: chore: Translations 2024-12 (pasta)
2f71f4d Merge dashpay#6458: chore: bump MIN_MASTERNODE_PROTO_VERSION to latest proto (pasta)
fa29ed5 Merge dashpay#6456: fix(qt): allow refreshing wallet data without crashing (pasta)
758cd64 Merge dashpay#6452: fix: store ready queues on the mixing masternode (pasta)
395447b Merge dashpay#6451: depends: update 'src/dashbls' to dashpay/bls-signatures@7e747e8a as 62fa665 (pasta)
c7b0d80 Merge dashpay#6441: fix: hold wallet shared pointer in CJ Manager/Sessions to prevent concurrent unload (pasta)
c074e09 Merge dashpay#6444: fix: add platform transfer to "most common" filter (pasta)
cb04114 Merge dashpay#6442: fix: coin selection with `include_unsafe` option should respect `nCoinType` (pasta)
db5b53a Merge dashpay#6434: fix: early EHF and buried EHF are indistinguish (pasta)
8b88ff7 Merge dashpay#6414: chore: bump seeds for v22 (pasta)
02ad523 Merge dashpay#6411: chore: update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid, checkpointData, chainTxData for mainnet and testnet (pasta)
3bbcd3d Merge dashpay#6393: docs: mention building for some HOSTs only in `release-process.md` (pasta)
18f636f Merge dashpay#6426: fix: respect SENDDSQUEUE message, move DSQ relay into net processing / peerman (pasta)
9fed456 Merge dashpay#6407: fix: dataraces (pasta)
86105da Merge dashpay#6408: refactor: removed pre-MN_RR logic of validation of CL (pasta)
a1f7e96 Merge dashpay#6406: ci: use `actions/cache` to manage depends cache (pasta)
90a3807 Merge dashpay#6402: ci: cache built (pasta)
66f6787 Merge dashpay#6401: ci: deduplicate depends building (pasta)
7ca5663 Merge dashpay#6397: ci: add powerpc64 to GH Guix job matrix (pasta)

Pull request description:

  ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented

  ## What was done?
  Suppressed changes from 1c7bfcb and resolved merge conflicts.

  ```
  Auto-merging .github/workflows/build.yml
  Auto-merging configure.ac
  Auto-merging src/chainparams.cpp
  Auto-merging src/coinjoin/client.cpp
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/coinjoin/client.cpp
  Auto-merging src/coinjoin/client.h
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/coinjoin/client.h
  Auto-merging src/coinjoin/util.cpp
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/coinjoin/util.cpp
  Auto-merging src/coinjoin/util.h
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/coinjoin/util.h
  Auto-merging src/evo/specialtxman.cpp
  Auto-merging src/init.cpp
  Auto-merging src/net_processing.cpp
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/net_processing.cpp
  Auto-merging src/net_processing.h
  Auto-merging src/qt/transactiontablemodel.cpp
  Auto-merging src/wallet/wallet.cpp
  Auto-merging src/wallet/wallet.h
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/wallet/wallet.h
  Auto-merging test/functional/feature_llmq_chainlocks.py
  CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in test/functional/feature_llmq_chainlocks.py
  ```

  ## How Has This Been Tested?

  ## Breaking Changes

  ## Checklist:
  - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
  - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
  - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  - [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_

ACKs for top commit:
  PastaPastaPasta:
    utACK d108579; no diff to develop

Tree-SHA512: 3f063011224880fee35edb04ce265dff33a52273c3d45ef1dbcebcecb22c25d8ad7c91b83514f36142716a6fbd0ddd3a8a3f2a9b59ce78ce975bbce69a2a13b5
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@kwvg kwvg kwvg approved these changes

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 UdjinM6 approved these changes

@knst knst knst approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
22
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@PastaPastaPasta @knst @UdjinM6 @kwvg