dash/test/functional/p2p_permissions.py

181 lines
7.3 KiB
Python
Raw Normal View History

Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
#!/usr/bin/env python3
# Copyright (c) 2015-2020 The Bitcoin Core developers
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
# Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying
# file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.
"""Test p2p permission message.
Test that permissions are correctly calculated and applied
"""
from test_framework.address import ADDRESS_BCRT1_P2SH_OP_TRUE
from test_framework.messages import (
CTransaction,
FromHex,
)
Merge #19760: test: Remove confusing mininode terminology d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a [test] Remove final references to mininode (John Newbery) 5e8df3312e47a73e747ee892face55ed9ababeea test: resort imports (John Newbery) 85165d4332b0f72d30e0c584b476249b542338e6 scripted-diff: Rename mininode to p2p (John Newbery) 9e2897d020b114a10c860f90c5405be029afddba scripted-diff: Rename mininode_lock to p2p_lock (John Newbery) Pull request description: New contributors are often confused by the terminology in the test framework, and what the difference between a _node_ and a _peer_ is. To summarize: - a 'node' is a bitcoind instance. This is the thing whose behavior is being tested. Each bitcoind node is managed by a python `TestNode` object which is used to start/stop the node, manage the node's data directory, read state about the node (eg process status, log file), and interact with the node over different interfaces. - one of the interfaces that we can use to interact with the node is the p2p interface. Each connection to a node using this interface is managed by a python `P2PInterface` or derived object (which is owned by the `TestNode` object). We can open zero, one or many p2p connections to each bitcoind node. The node sees these connections as 'peers'. For historic reasons, the word 'mininode' has been used to refer to those p2p interface objects that we use to connect to the bitcoind node (the code was originally taken from the 'mini-node' branch of https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/tree/mini-node). However that name has proved to be confusing for new contributors, so rename the remaining references. ACKs for top commit: amitiuttarwar: ACK d5800da519 MarcoFalke: ACK d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a 🚞 Tree-SHA512: 2c46c2ac3c4278b6e3c647cfd8108428a41e80788fc4f0e386e5b0c47675bc687d94779496c09a3e5ea1319617295be10c422adeeff2d2bd68378e00e0eeb5de
2024-01-15 20:35:29 +01:00
from test_framework.p2p import P2PDataStore
from test_framework.script import (
CScript,
OP_TRUE,
)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
from test_framework.test_node import ErrorMatch
from test_framework.test_framework import BitcoinTestFramework
from test_framework.util import (
assert_equal,
p2p_port,
)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
class P2PPermissionsTests(BitcoinTestFramework):
def set_test_params(self):
self.num_nodes = 2
self.setup_clean_chain = True
def run_test(self):
self.check_tx_relay()
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# default permissions (no specific permissions)
["-whitelist=127.0.0.1"],
# Make sure the default values in the command line documentation match the ones here
["relay", "noban", "mempool", "download"],
True)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# no permission (even with forcerelay)
["-whitelist=@127.0.0.1", "-whitelistforcerelay=1"],
[],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# relay permission removed (no specific permissions)
["-whitelist=127.0.0.1", "-whitelistrelay=0"],
["noban", "mempool", "download"],
True)
self.checkpermission(
# forcerelay and relay permission added
# Legacy parameter interaction which set whitelistrelay to true
# if whitelistforcerelay is true
["-whitelist=127.0.0.1", "-whitelistforcerelay"],
["forcerelay", "relay", "noban", "mempool", "download"],
True)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
# Let's make sure permissions are merged correctly
# For this, we need to use whitebind instead of bind
# by modifying the configuration file.
ip_port = "127.0.0.1:{}".format(p2p_port(1))
self.replaceinconfig(1, "bind=127.0.0.1", "whitebind=bloomfilter,forcerelay@" + ip_port)
self.checkpermission(
["-whitelist=noban@127.0.0.1"],
# Check parameter interaction forcerelay should activate relay
["noban", "bloomfilter", "forcerelay", "relay", "download"],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.replaceinconfig(1, "whitebind=bloomfilter,forcerelay@" + ip_port, "bind=127.0.0.1")
self.checkpermission(
# legacy whitelistrelay should be ignored
["-whitelist=noban,mempool@127.0.0.1", "-whitelistrelay"],
["noban", "mempool", "download"],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# legacy whitelistforcerelay should be ignored
["-whitelist=noban,mempool@127.0.0.1", "-whitelistforcerelay"],
["noban", "mempool", "download"],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# missing mempool permission to be considered legacy whitelisted
["-whitelist=noban@127.0.0.1"],
["noban", "download"],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.checkpermission(
# all permission added
["-whitelist=all@127.0.0.1"],
["forcerelay", "noban", "mempool", "bloomfilter", "relay", "download", "addr"],
False)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
self.stop_node(1)
self.nodes[1].assert_start_raises_init_error(["-whitelist=oopsie@127.0.0.1"], "Invalid P2P permission", match=ErrorMatch.PARTIAL_REGEX)
self.nodes[1].assert_start_raises_init_error(["-whitelist=noban@127.0.0.1:230"], "Invalid netmask specified in", match=ErrorMatch.PARTIAL_REGEX)
self.nodes[1].assert_start_raises_init_error(["-whitebind=noban@127.0.0.1/10"], "Cannot resolve -whitebind address", match=ErrorMatch.PARTIAL_REGEX)
def check_tx_relay(self):
block_op_true = self.nodes[0].getblock(self.nodes[0].generatetoaddress(100, ADDRESS_BCRT1_P2SH_OP_TRUE)[0])
self.sync_all()
self.log.debug("Create a connection from a forcerelay peer that rebroadcasts raw txs")
Merge #19760: test: Remove confusing mininode terminology d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a [test] Remove final references to mininode (John Newbery) 5e8df3312e47a73e747ee892face55ed9ababeea test: resort imports (John Newbery) 85165d4332b0f72d30e0c584b476249b542338e6 scripted-diff: Rename mininode to p2p (John Newbery) 9e2897d020b114a10c860f90c5405be029afddba scripted-diff: Rename mininode_lock to p2p_lock (John Newbery) Pull request description: New contributors are often confused by the terminology in the test framework, and what the difference between a _node_ and a _peer_ is. To summarize: - a 'node' is a bitcoind instance. This is the thing whose behavior is being tested. Each bitcoind node is managed by a python `TestNode` object which is used to start/stop the node, manage the node's data directory, read state about the node (eg process status, log file), and interact with the node over different interfaces. - one of the interfaces that we can use to interact with the node is the p2p interface. Each connection to a node using this interface is managed by a python `P2PInterface` or derived object (which is owned by the `TestNode` object). We can open zero, one or many p2p connections to each bitcoind node. The node sees these connections as 'peers'. For historic reasons, the word 'mininode' has been used to refer to those p2p interface objects that we use to connect to the bitcoind node (the code was originally taken from the 'mini-node' branch of https://github.com/jgarzik/pynode/tree/mini-node). However that name has proved to be confusing for new contributors, so rename the remaining references. ACKs for top commit: amitiuttarwar: ACK d5800da519 MarcoFalke: ACK d5800da5199527a366024bc80cad7fcca17d5c4a 🚞 Tree-SHA512: 2c46c2ac3c4278b6e3c647cfd8108428a41e80788fc4f0e386e5b0c47675bc687d94779496c09a3e5ea1319617295be10c422adeeff2d2bd68378e00e0eeb5de
2024-01-15 20:35:29 +01:00
# A test framework p2p connection is needed to send the raw transaction directly. If a full node was used, it could only
# rebroadcast via the inv-getdata mechanism. However, even for forcerelay connections, a full node would
# currently not request a txid that is already in the mempool.
self.restart_node(1, extra_args=["-whitelist=forcerelay@127.0.0.1"])
p2p_rebroadcast_wallet = self.nodes[1].add_p2p_connection(P2PDataStore())
self.log.debug("Send a tx from the wallet initially")
tx = FromHex(
CTransaction(),
self.nodes[0].createrawtransaction(
inputs=[{
'txid': block_op_true['tx'][0],
'vout': 0,
}], outputs=[{
ADDRESS_BCRT1_P2SH_OP_TRUE: 5,
}]),
)
tx.vin[0].scriptSig = CScript([CScript([OP_TRUE])])
txid = tx.rehash()
self.log.debug("Wait until tx is in node[1]'s mempool")
p2p_rebroadcast_wallet.send_txs_and_test([tx], self.nodes[1])
self.log.debug("Check that node[1] will send the tx to node[0] even though it is already in the mempool")
self.connect_nodes(1, 0)
def in_mempool():
self.bump_mocktime(1)
return txid in self.nodes[0].getrawmempool()
with self.nodes[1].assert_debug_log(["Force relaying tx {} from peer=0".format(txid)]):
p2p_rebroadcast_wallet.send_txs_and_test([tx], self.nodes[1])
self.wait_until(in_mempool)
Merge #17985: net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: This removes the code that supposedly handled the forced relay of txs from a permissioned peer that were rejected from our mempool. The removal should be fine, because it is dead code for the following reasons: * While `RelayTransaction` enqueues the inv for all peers, the inv is never processed because it can not be found in the mempool. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4a072330763b3ff2d1b5c5b8d30a9517873ac6de/src/net_processing.cpp#L3862-L3866 * Even if the peers we intended to send the inv to can somehow reply with a getdata to the never-received inv, they won't receive the tx as a reply because it was never added to the "relay memory" (`mapRelay`) The dead code is (obviously) untested: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/total.coverage/src/net_processing.cpp.gcov.html#2574 This feature was (intentionally or accidentally) removed in 4d8993b3469915d8c9ba4cd3b918f16782edf0de, which was released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0. So all currently supported versions of Bitcoin Core ship without this feature. I am not aware of any complaints about this feature or actual documented use-cases. So instead of reviving an unneeded feature, just remove the dead code. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c, locally running the unit and functional tests. Tree-SHA512: bfceae6f2983c1510fa0649a9a63c343cbbc1c4ab3a3698039cccf454c81e58c8f5114b147ed42a1bc867da74c43a5b53764ab14f942e191b6f59079044108b5
2020-02-26 18:44:25 +01:00
self.log.debug("Check that node[1] will not send an invalid tx to node[0]")
tx.vout[0].nValue += 1
txid = tx.rehash()
# Send the transaction twice. The first time, it'll be rejected by ATMP because it conflicts
# with a mempool transaction. The second time, it'll be in the recentRejects filter.
Merge #17985: net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: This removes the code that supposedly handled the forced relay of txs from a permissioned peer that were rejected from our mempool. The removal should be fine, because it is dead code for the following reasons: * While `RelayTransaction` enqueues the inv for all peers, the inv is never processed because it can not be found in the mempool. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4a072330763b3ff2d1b5c5b8d30a9517873ac6de/src/net_processing.cpp#L3862-L3866 * Even if the peers we intended to send the inv to can somehow reply with a getdata to the never-received inv, they won't receive the tx as a reply because it was never added to the "relay memory" (`mapRelay`) The dead code is (obviously) untested: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/total.coverage/src/net_processing.cpp.gcov.html#2574 This feature was (intentionally or accidentally) removed in 4d8993b3469915d8c9ba4cd3b918f16782edf0de, which was released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0. So all currently supported versions of Bitcoin Core ship without this feature. I am not aware of any complaints about this feature or actual documented use-cases. So instead of reviving an unneeded feature, just remove the dead code. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c, locally running the unit and functional tests. Tree-SHA512: bfceae6f2983c1510fa0649a9a63c343cbbc1c4ab3a3698039cccf454c81e58c8f5114b147ed42a1bc867da74c43a5b53764ab14f942e191b6f59079044108b5
2020-02-26 18:44:25 +01:00
p2p_rebroadcast_wallet.send_txs_and_test(
[tx],
self.nodes[1],
success=False,
reject_reason='{} from peer=0 was not accepted: txn-mempool-conflict'.format(txid)
)
p2p_rebroadcast_wallet.send_txs_and_test(
[tx],
self.nodes[1],
success=False,
reject_reason='Not relaying non-mempool transaction {} from forcerelay peer=0'.format(txid)
Merge #17985: net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c net: Remove forcerelay of rejected txs (MarcoFalke) Pull request description: This removes the code that supposedly handled the forced relay of txs from a permissioned peer that were rejected from our mempool. The removal should be fine, because it is dead code for the following reasons: * While `RelayTransaction` enqueues the inv for all peers, the inv is never processed because it can not be found in the mempool. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4a072330763b3ff2d1b5c5b8d30a9517873ac6de/src/net_processing.cpp#L3862-L3866 * Even if the peers we intended to send the inv to can somehow reply with a getdata to the never-received inv, they won't receive the tx as a reply because it was never added to the "relay memory" (`mapRelay`) The dead code is (obviously) untested: https://marcofalke.github.io/btc_cov/total.coverage/src/net_processing.cpp.gcov.html#2574 This feature was (intentionally or accidentally) removed in 4d8993b3469915d8c9ba4cd3b918f16782edf0de, which was released in Bitcoin Core 0.13.0. So all currently supported versions of Bitcoin Core ship without this feature. I am not aware of any complaints about this feature or actual documented use-cases. So instead of reviving an unneeded feature, just remove the dead code. ACKs for top commit: hebasto: ACK facb71576cd4d2e90fd03e09d29b42fa3d730e8c, locally running the unit and functional tests. Tree-SHA512: bfceae6f2983c1510fa0649a9a63c343cbbc1c4ab3a3698039cccf454c81e58c8f5114b147ed42a1bc867da74c43a5b53764ab14f942e191b6f59079044108b5
2020-02-26 18:44:25 +01:00
)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
def checkpermission(self, args, expectedPermissions, whitelisted):
self.restart_node(1, args)
self.connect_nodes(0, 1)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
peerinfo = self.nodes[1].getpeerinfo()[0]
assert_equal(peerinfo['whitelisted'], whitelisted)
assert_equal(len(expectedPermissions), len(peerinfo['permissions']))
for p in expectedPermissions:
if not p in peerinfo['permissions']:
raise AssertionError("Expected permissions %r is not granted." % p)
def replaceinconfig(self, nodeid, old, new):
with open(self.nodes[nodeid].bitcoinconf, encoding="utf8") as f:
newText = f.read().replace(old, new)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
with open(self.nodes[nodeid].bitcoinconf, 'w', encoding="utf8") as f:
f.write(newText)
Merge #16248: Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Add functional tests for flexible whitebind/list (nicolas.dorier) d541fa391844f658bd7035659b5b16695733dd56 Replace the use of fWhitelisted by permission checks (nicolas.dorier) ecd5cf7ea4c3644a30092100ffc399e30e193275 Do not disconnect peer for asking mempool if it has NO_BAN permission (nicolas.dorier) e5b26deaaa6842f7dd7c4537ede000f965ea0189 Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible (nicolas.dorier) Pull request description: # Motivation In 0.19, bloom filter will be disabled by default. I tried to make [a PR](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176) to enable bloom filter for whitelisted peers regardless of `-peerbloomfilters`. Bloom filter have non existent privacy and server can omit filter's matches. However, both problems are completely irrelevant when you connect to your own node. If you connect to your own node, bloom filters are the most bandwidth efficient way to synchronize your light client without the need of some middleware like Electrum. It is also a superior alternative to BIP157 as it does not require to maintain an additional index and it would work well on pruned nodes. When I attempted to allow bloom filters for whitelisted peer, my proposal has been NACKed in favor of [a more flexible approach](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16176#issuecomment-500762907) which should allow node operator to set fine grained permissions instead of a global `whitelisted` attribute. Doing so will also make follow up idea very easy to implement in a backward compatible way. # Implementation details The PR propose a new format for `--white{list,bind}`. I added a way to specify permissions granted to inbound connection matching `white{list,bind}`. The following permissions exists: * ForceRelay * Relay * NoBan * BloomFilter * Mempool Example: * `-whitelist=bloomfilter@127.0.0.1/32`. * `-whitebind=bloomfilter,relay,noban@127.0.0.1:10020`. If no permissions are specified, `NoBan | Mempool` is assumed. (making this PR backward compatible) When we receive an inbound connection, we calculate the effective permissions for this peer by fetching the permissions granted from `whitelist` and add to it the permissions granted from `whitebind`. To keep backward compatibility, if no permissions are specified in `white{list,bind}` (e.g. `--whitelist=127.0.0.1`) then parameters `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` will add the permissions `ForceRelay` and `Relay` to the inbound node. `-whitelistforcerelay` and `-whiterelay` are ignored if the permissions flags are explicitly set in `white{bind,list}`. # Follow up idea Based on this PR, other changes become quite easy to code in a trivially review-able, backward compatible way: * Changing `connect` at rpc and config file level to understand the permissions flags. * Changing the permissions of a peer at RPC level. ACKs for top commit: laanwj: re-ACK c5b404e8f1973afe071a07c63ba1038eefe13f0f Tree-SHA512: adfefb373d09e68cae401247c8fc64034e305694cdef104bdcdacb9f1704277bd53b18f52a2427a5cffdbc77bda410d221aed252bc2ece698ffbb9cf1b830577
2019-08-14 16:35:54 +02:00
if __name__ == '__main__':
P2PPermissionsTests().main()