We could be reading multiple messages from a socket buffer at once _without actually processing them yet_ which means that `fSuccessfullyConnected` might not be switched to `true` at the time we already parsed `VERACK` message and started to parse the next one. This is basically a false positive and we drop a legit node as a result even though the order of messages sent by this node was completely fine. To fix this I partially reverted #2790 (where the issue was initially introduced) and moved the logic for tracking the first message into ProcessMessage instead.
fad63eb [logging] Don't incorrectly log that REJECT messages are unknown. (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Reject messages are logged to debug.log if NET debug logging is enabled.
Because of the way the `ProcessMessages()` function is structured,
processing for REJECT messages will also drop through to the default
branch and incorrectly log `Unknown command "reject" from peer-?`. Fix
that by exiting from `ProcessMessages()` early.
without this PR:
```
2018-05-03T17:37:00.930600Z received: reject (21 bytes) peer=0
2018-05-03T17:37:00.930620Z Reject message code 16: spammy spam
2018-05-03T17:37:00.930656Z Unknown command "reject" from peer=0
```
with this PR:
```
2018-05-03T17:35:04.751246Z received: reject (21 bytes) peer=0
2018-05-03T17:35:04.751274Z Reject message code 16: spammy spam
```
Tree-SHA512: 5c84c98433ab99e0db2dd481f9c2db6f87ff0d39022ff317a791737e918714bbcb4a23e81118212ed8e594ebcf098ab7f52f7fd5e21ebc3f07b1efb279b9b30b
fa6c3dea420b6c50c164ccc34f4e9e8a7d9a8022 p2p: Clarify control flow in ProcessMessage() (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`ProcessMessage` is effectively a massive switch case construct. In the past there were attempts to clarify the control flow in `ProcessMessage()` by moving each case into a separate static function (see #9608). It was closed because it wasn't clear if moving each case into a function was the right approach.
Though, we can quasi treat each case as a function by adding a return statement to each case. (Can be seen as a continuation of bugfix #13162)
This patch does exactly that.
Also note that this patch is a subset of previous approaches such as #9608 and #10145.
Review suggestion: `git diff HEAD~ --function-context`
Tree-SHA512: 91f6106840de2f29bb4f10d27bae0616b03a91126e6c6013479e1dd79bee53f22a78902b631fe85517dd5dc0fa7239939b4fefc231851a13c819458559f6c201
Sometimes the node we ask for mnlistdiff is so fast to reply that we receive the message back before we reset `last_mnlistdiff`. To fix this we should reset it before sending the message, not after.
* Check MNs up to 24 blocks deep when verifying `dstx`
* Handle DSTX-es more like regular txes and not like "other" invs
* Try asking for a DSTX too when trying to find missing tx parents
* Check DSTX-es when chainlock arrives
`HasChainLock` was always `false` in `IsExpired` because tip is updated before the corresponding chainlock is received
* Apply `Handle DSTX-es more like regular txes` idea to `AlreadyHave()`
* Alternative handling of DSTX+recentRejects
Co-authored-by: Alexander Block <ablock84@gmail.com>
This has the wanted side effect of proper locking of "cs" inside
CommitCurTransaction and RollbackCurTransaction, which was not easily
possible to implement in the generic version. This fixes some rare crashes.
