[Merged by Bors] - Don't downscore peers on duplicate blocks #4791
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
michaelsproul
approved these changes
Sep 28, 2023
jimmygchen
added
ready-for-merge
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2023
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
|
This PR was included in a batch that was canceled, it will be automatically retried |
|
bors r- |
|
Canceled. |
|
bors r+ |
|
bors r- |
|
Canceled. |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2023
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2023
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
|
Build failed (retrying...): |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 29, 2023
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
|
Build failed: |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2023
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
|
Pull request successfully merged into unstable. Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page.
|
bors
bot
changed the title
Woodpile37
pushed a commit
to Woodpile37/lighthouse
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
## Issue Addressed N/A ## Proposed Changes We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when 1. We published the block, so the block is already in fork choice 2. We imported the same block over rpc In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault. This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter
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.
Issue Addressed
N/A
Proposed Changes
We were currently downscoring a peer for sending us a block that we already have in fork choice. This is unnecessary as we get duplicates in lighthouse only when
In both scenarios, the peer who sent us the block over gossip is not at fault.
This isn't exploitable as valid duplicates will get dropped by the gossipsub duplicate filter