service: use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY #5331

acatangiu · 2022-04-15T14:19:38Z

Instead of allowing BEEFY to run on specific test nets, reverse the condition to explicitly disallow BEEFY on production chains that we don't want it to run on yet.

This allows other test chains (Rialto used in bridges) to use the polkadot service file and still be able to run and test BEEFY.

Needed for paritytech/parity-bridges-common#1286

Release Notes

--beefy CLI option is now explicitly disallowed on polkadot, kusama and westend chains, and will error out.

svyatonik

There must be some story behind this code - I haven't seen the PR where it has been introduced. But I wonder if we may change behavior a bit - instead of silently ignoring cli option (I guess enable_beefy flag value comes from cli, right?) can we return Err(_) from new_full when someone is trying to enable BEEFY on Kusama/Polkadot/Westend? Otherwise it seems strange to see node is successfully starting, but BEEFY is not running :) Or it may break some deployments - i.e. is BEEFY cli flag enabled by default?

acatangiu · 2022-04-18T10:09:29Z

There must be some story behind this code

Unfortunately, I don't know the story of this code and why original decision to override CLI and silently disable (as opposed to explicitly disallow and throw error) BEEFY was made...

Now we can either keep that behavior, or as you say return Err(_) from new_full() and fail to start nodes for production chains when BEEFY enabled thru CLI param.

While I agree the latter is cleaner, more clear and explicit, this PR implements the former because I'm not sure about the impact it would otherwise have on deployments. Went the safe route to avoid breakages.

Another supportive argument for keeping current behavior is that it is temporary, with plans to have BEEFY running on all chain specs by end of this year.

acatangiu · 2022-04-19T09:07:02Z

I need a @paritytech/core-devs reviewer here, please

node/service/src/lib.rs

andresilva · 2022-04-19T09:15:09Z

node/service/src/lib.rs

+		config.chain_spec.is_kusama() ||
+		config.chain_spec.is_westend()
+	{
+		enable_beefy = false;


I would add a warn: if enable_beefy { warn!("Tried to enable BEEFY on a production network. Refusing as BEEFY is still experimental.") }. Something along those lines.

I thought about that as well, but I found it odd that log crate is not used anywhere in node/service and I just assumed there's a reason for it...

I'll add log dependency and log a warn!, but writing it out here as well so anybody who knows of a reason we shouldn't, can react 😄

There is a local crate for logging that also deals with tracing gum::warn! should work.

Still need to make that easier to discover, but here's the rationale for the interested reader around why we need gum https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot/blob/6cafab2d926000fa612af29b02e8ed482d4dd9c5/node/gum/README.md

cheme

Code change looks good to me.
Yet if it matters that we don't have it running for polkadot and kusama. It may matter to other chain, so I would maybe switch to B1-releasenote.
(other node can always override the cli value in their bin crate).
Edit: thinking twice, this comment only really make sense if it was in substrate so please ignore.

drahnr · 2022-04-19T10:21:01Z

We had troubles when first enabled by default, mostly performance related iirc, but that has been a while (1a+) ago.

Complexity of new_full and it's inner helpers is already too high ( paritytech/polkadot-sdk#939 ), could we not resolve this at the arg preparation (before entering new_full) level?

node/service/Cargo.toml

Instead of allowing BEEFY to run on specific test nets, inverse the condition to explicitly disallow BEEFY on production chains that we don't want it to run on yet. This allows other test chains (other than Rococo/Wococo) that use the polkadot service file to enable and test BEEFY. Signed-off-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]>

drahnr

Generally looks good, imho this is breaking the public contract, so it should be part of the changelog since manual intervention is required to maintain the previous behavior.

How does this play out at the perf side? Do we expect any impact for the regular validator execution paths?

acatangiu · 2022-04-19T10:34:38Z

it should be part of the changelog since manual intervention is required to maintain the previous behavior.

Is there anything else to do other than set B1-releasenotes label to get it in the changelog?

How does this play out at the perf side? Do we expect any impact for the regular validator execution paths?

No, we do not expect any performance impact even when BEEFY is enabled. BEEFY gadget is driven by finality notifications and other validators' gossip of votes also driven by their finality notifications, so overall little traffic.

acatangiu · 2022-04-19T10:45:40Z

Complexity of new_full and it's inner helpers is already too high ( paritytech/polkadot-sdk#939 ), could we not resolve this at the arg preparation (before entering new_full) level?

The potential for code reuse of the polkadot_service::new_full() fn in other chains, and its high complexity are sort of the two sides of the same proverbial coin.. I expect new_full() to be externally re-used more frequently than arg preparation or even build_full() (caller of new_full()).

In bridges, in particular, we'd need the changes from this PR in new_full(): https://github.com/paritytech/parity-bridges-common/blob/master/bin/rialto/node/src/command.rs#L197

…stnets

node/service/src/lib.rs

drahnr

Thank you! LGTM

Signed-off-by: acatangiu <[email protected]>

…stnets

acatangiu · 2022-04-26T13:24:02Z

bot merge

* use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY Instead of allowing BEEFY to run on specific test nets, inverse the condition to explicitly disallow BEEFY on production chains that we don't want it to run on yet. This allows other test chains (other than Rococo/Wococo) that use the polkadot service file to enable and test BEEFY. Signed-off-by: Adrian Catangiu <[email protected]> * address review comments * throw error if BEEFY enabled on production networks Signed-off-by: acatangiu <[email protected]>

acatangiu self-assigned this Apr 15, 2022

acatangiu requested a review from svyatonik April 18, 2022 09:25

svyatonik approved these changes Apr 18, 2022

View reviewed changes

acatangiu requested a review from andresilva April 18, 2022 12:02

andresilva approved these changes Apr 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

cheme approved these changes Apr 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

acatangiu added B1-releasenotes and removed B0-silent Changes should not be mentioned in any release notes labels Apr 19, 2022

andresilva suggested changes Apr 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

node/service/Cargo.toml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acatangiu added 2 commits April 19, 2022 13:22

address review comments

e6a6d00

drahnr suggested changes Apr 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

acatangiu requested review from andresilva and drahnr April 19, 2022 10:56

acatangiu added 2 commits April 20, 2022 15:27

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:paritytech/polkadot into beefy-te…

d53d63a

…stnets

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:paritytech/polkadot into beefy-te…

cb4a5ab

…stnets

drahnr reviewed Apr 21, 2022

View reviewed changes

node/service/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

acatangiu requested a review from drahnr April 22, 2022 10:00

drahnr approved these changes Apr 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

throw error if BEEFY enabled on production networks

752b4e9

Signed-off-by: acatangiu <[email protected]>

andresilva approved these changes Apr 22, 2022

View reviewed changes

acatangiu added 2 commits April 22, 2022 14:06

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:paritytech/polkadot into beefy-te…

5668490

…stnets

Merge branch 'master' of github.com:paritytech/polkadot into beefy-te…

ca8e772

…stnets

paritytech-processbot bot merged commit b1da1e2 into paritytech:master Apr 26, 2022

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request May 31, 2022

Update substrate/polkadot/cumulus from v0.9.20 to v0.9.22 moonbeam-foundation/moonbeam#1557

Closed

github-actions bot mentioned this pull request Jun 22, 2022

Update substrate/polkadot/cumulus from v0.9.20 to v0.9.23 moonbeam-foundation/moonbeam#1623

Closed

Dengjianping mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2022

Bump deps to v0.9.22 Manta-Network/Manta#571

Merged

10 tasks

This was referenced Jul 18, 2022

Update polkadot/moonbeam/orml from v0.9.20 to v0.9.23 imstar15/OAK-blockchain#6

Closed

Update polkadot/moonbeam/orml from v0.9.20 to v0.9.23 imstar15/OAK-blockchain#7

Open

ghbot-test bot mentioned this pull request Jul 28, 2022

Dependencies update imstar15/OAK-blockchain#25

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

service: use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY #5331

service: use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY #5331

acatangiu commented Apr 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

svyatonik left a comment

acatangiu commented Apr 18, 2022

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

andresilva Apr 19, 2022

acatangiu Apr 19, 2022

andresilva Apr 19, 2022

drahnr Apr 19, 2022 •

edited

Loading

cheme left a comment •

edited

Loading

drahnr commented Apr 19, 2022

drahnr left a comment

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

drahnr left a comment

acatangiu commented Apr 26, 2022

service: use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY #5331

service: use deny-list instead of allow-list for BEEFY #5331

Conversation

acatangiu commented Apr 15, 2022 • edited Loading

Release Notes

svyatonik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

acatangiu commented Apr 18, 2022

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

andresilva Apr 19, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

acatangiu Apr 19, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

andresilva Apr 19, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

drahnr Apr 19, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cheme left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

drahnr commented Apr 19, 2022

drahnr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

acatangiu commented Apr 19, 2022

drahnr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

acatangiu commented Apr 26, 2022

acatangiu commented Apr 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

drahnr Apr 19, 2022 •

edited

Loading

cheme left a comment •

edited

Loading