69c37f4ec2 rpc: make sure `upgradetohd` always has the passphrase for `UpgradeToHD` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
619b640a77 wallet: unify HD chain generation in CWallet (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
163d31861c wallet: unify HD chain generation in LegacyScriptPubKeyMan (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Motivation
When filming demo footage for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6093, I realized that if I tried to create an encrypted blank legacy wallet and run `upgradetohd [mnemonic]`, the client would crash.
```
dash@b9c6631a824d:/src/dash$ ./src/qt/dash-qt
QStandardPaths: XDG_RUNTIME_DIR not set, defaulting to '/tmp/runtime-dash'
dash-qt: wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp:399: void LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain(const SecureString &, const SecureString &, CKeyingMaterial): Assertion `res' failed.
Posix Signal: Aborted
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run:
dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5avkbxxg2lyebjwsz3omfwduicbmjxxe5dfmqaaa===
```
The expected set of operations when performing privileged operations is to first use `walletpassphrase [passphrase] [time]` to unlock the wallet and then perform the privileged operation. This routine that applies for almost all privileged RPCs doesn't apply here, the unlock state of the wallet has no bearing on constructing an encrypted HD chain as it needs to be encrypted with the master key stored in the wallet, which in turn is encrypted with a key derived from the passphrase (i.e., `upgradetohd` imports **always** need the passphrase, if encrypted).
You might have noticed that I used `upgradetohd [mnemonic]` instead of the correct syntax, `upgradetohd [mnemonic] "" [passphrase]` that is supposed to be used when supplying a mnemonic to an encrypted wallet, because when you run the former, you don't get told to enter the passphrase into the RPC command, you're told.
```
Error: Please enter the wallet passphrase with walletpassphrase first.
```
Which tells you to treat it like any other routine privileged operation and follow the routine as mentioned above. This is where insufficient validation starts rearing its head, we only validate the passphrase if we're supplied one even though we should be demanding one if the wallet is encrypted and it isn't supplied. We didn't supply a passphrase because we're following the normal routine, we unlocked the wallet so `EnsureWalletIsUnlocked()` is happy, so now the following happens.
```
upgradetohd()
| Insufficient validation has allowed us to supply a blank passphrase
| for an encrypted wallet
|- CWallet::UpgradeToHD()
|- CWallet::GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()
| We get our hands on vMasterKey by generating the key from our passphrase
| and using it to unlock vCryptedMasterKey.
|
| There's one small problem, we don't know if the output of CCrypter::Decrypt
| isn't just gibberish. Since we don't have a passphrase, whatever came from
| CCrypter::SetKeyFromPassphrase isn't the decryption key, meaning, the
| vMasterKey we just got is gibberish
|- LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()
|- res = LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::EncryptHDChain()
| |- EncryptSecret()
| |- CCrypter::SetKey()
| This is where everything unravels, the gibberish key's size doesn't
| match WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE, it's no good for encryption. We bail out.
|- assert(res)
We assume are inputs are safe so there's no real reason we should crash.
Except our inputs aren't safe, so we crash. Welp! :c
```
This problem has existed for a while but didn't cause the client to crash, in v20.1.1 (19512988c6), trying to do the same thing would return you a vague error
```
Failed to generate encrypted HD wallet (code -4)
```
In the process of working on mitigating this crash, another edge case was discovered, where if the wallet was unlocked and an incorrect passphrase was provided to `upgradetohd`, the user would not receive any feedback that they entered the wrong passphrase and the client would similarly crash.
```
upgradetohd()
| We've been supplied a passphrase, so we can try and validate it by
| trying to unlock the wallet with it. If it fails, we know we got the
| wrong passphrase.
|- CWallet::Unlock()
| | Before we bother unlocking the wallet, we should check if we're
| | already unlocked, if we are, we can just say "unlock successful".
| |- CWallet::IsLocked()
| | Wallet is indeed unlocked.
| |- return true;
| The validation method we just tried to use has a bail-out mechanism
| that we don't account for, the "unlock" succeded so I guess we have the
| right passphrase.
[...] (continue call chain as mentioned earlier)
|- assert(res)
Oh...
```
This pull request aims to resolve crashes caused by the above two edge cases.
## Additional Information
As this PR was required me to add additional guardrails on `GenerateNewCryptedHDChain()` and `GenerateNewHDChainEncrypted()`, it was taken as an opportunity to resolve a TODO ([source](9456d0761d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5028-L5038))). The following mitigations have been implemented.
* Validating `vMasterKey` size (any key not of `WALLET_CRYPTO_KEY_SIZE` size cannot be used for encryption and so, cannot be a valid key)
* Validating `secureWalletPassphrase`'s presence to catch attempts at passing a blank value (an encrypted wallet cannot have a blank passphrase)
* Using `Unlock()` to validate the correctness of `vMasterKey`. (the two other instances of iterating through `mapMasterKeys` use `Unlock()`, see [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L5498-L5500)) and [here](1394c41c8d/src/wallet/wallet.cpp (L429-L431)))
* `Lock()`'ing the wallet before `Unlock()`'ing the wallet to avoid the `IsLocked()` bail-out condition and then restoring to the previous lock state afterwards.
* Add an `IsCrypted()` check to see if `upgradetohd`'s `walletpassphrase` is allowed to be empty.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
UdjinM6:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 69c37f4ec2
Tree-SHA512: 4bda1f7155511447d6672bbaa22b909f5e2fc7efd1fd8ae1c61e0cdbbf3f6c28f6e8c1a8fe2a270fdedff7279322c93bf0f8e01890aff556fb17288ef6907b3e
77915de40a test: run `Interrupt()` before `Stop()`, add additional sanity check (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
a376e9357a fix: init `g_txindex` only once, downgrade from assert to exception (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Motivation
`g_txindex` should be initialized in `TestChainSetup`'s constructor but when backporting [bitcoin#19806](6bf39d7632 (diff-6a8ef76c60f30a6ca67d9f0e478fd02989c4b7fbc4c3116f80e13d873d5775e6R289)) ([dash#5236](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5236)), portions of the constructor were split into `TestChainSetup::mineBlocks()`, `g_txindex`'s init was left behind in the latter instead of the former.
This meant that every `mineBlocks()` call would re-create a `TxIndex` instance, which is not intended behaviour; and was recorded to cause `heap-use-after-free`s ([comment](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6085#issuecomment-2228109300), also the reason this PR was opened).
This PR aims to resolve that.
## Additional Information
* Crashes stemming from previous attempts (except for one attempt) were not reproducible with my regular local setup (`depends` built with Clang 16, Dash Core built with Clang 16, set of debug-oriented flags, unit tests run using `./src/test/test_dash`).
* Attempting to rebuild Dash Core with GCC 9 was insufficient, required to rebuild depends with GCC 9 as well
* `configure`'d with `CC=gcc CXX=g++ CPPFLAGS="-DDEBUG_LOCKORDER -DARENA_DEBUG" ./configure --prefix=$(pwd)/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --enable-zmq --enable-reduce-exports --enable-crash-hooks --enable-c++20 --disable-ccache`
* Unit tests must be run with `make check-recursive -j$(( $(nproc --all) - 2 ))`
* An index must be initialized **after** the chain is constructed, this seems to be corroborated by all other index usage ([source](09239a17c7/src/test/blockfilter_index_tests.cpp (L141)), [source](09239a17c7/src/test/coinstatsindex_tests.cpp (L33)), [source](09239a17c7/src/test/txindex_tests.cpp (L31)), all three use `Start()` for their respective indexes _after_ `TestChain100Setup`'s constructor runs `mineBlocks()`)
* Attempting to run `Start()` earlier (_before_ the `mineBlocks()` call in the constructor) results in erratic behaviour
* This also explains why my attempt at moving it back to `TestingSetup` (a grandparent of `TestChainSetup`) failed
* `Interrupt()` is supposed to be called before `Stop()` but this was erroneously removed in a [commit](cc9dcdd0e0 (diff-6a8ef76c60f30a6ca67d9f0e478fd02989c4b7fbc4c3116f80e13d873d5775e6L413-L419)) that adopted `IndexWaitSynced`. This has since been resolved.
* In line [with](09239a17c7/src/test/blockfilter_index_tests.cpp (L138-L139)) [other](09239a17c7/src/test/coinstatsindex_tests.cpp (L29-L31)) [indexes](09239a17c7/src/test/txindex_tests.cpp (L28-L29)), an sanity check has been added. Additionally, as `TxIndex::Start()` is more akin to `CChainState::LoadGenesisBlock()` than `CChainState::CanFlushToDisk()`, the `assert` has been downgraded to an exception.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK 77915de40a
UdjinM6:
utACK 77915de40a
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 77915de40a
Tree-SHA512: 5051dcf62b6cad4597044b4d27dc54c5bafa8692ba31e03c8afc0f7ef80b790a3873cf0275bb2cf6260939a11f95625da79fc7987951e66114900a86276c037c
185e0fa1e8 doc: consistently use ```sh tags for correct shell highlighting (AJ ONeal)
3c198e01b8 doc: consistently use 'apt-get install' rather than 'apt install' (due to 'apt's sutble dependencies on interactive environment) (AJ ONeal)
22f7596b12 doc: add missing 'install' to 'apt-get' command (AJ ONeal)
ea97482430 doc: make build steps more prominent (AJ ONeal)
Pull request description:
Developers come to Dash should have clear instruction for how to build / compile just by scanning the README.
Also, the instructions should be correct and consistent.
## What was done?
- `apt-get` => `apt-get install` (fix typo)
- `apt install` => `apt-get install` (due to subtle bugs with `apt` in non-interactive scripts)
- correct grammar `doc folder` => `./doc/`
- make build / compile documentation prominent in README.md \
(easy to find via ctrl+f or scanning)
- use `` ```sh `` consistently for shell formatting (rather than mixing `` ``, `` ```bash ``, `` ```shell ``, and `` ```sh ``
## How Has This Been Tested?
See <https://github.com/dashhive/dash/tree/doc-build-docs>.
Note that it's formatted well and consistently and the typos are fixed.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
Only fixes here.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] ~~I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas~~
- [x] ~~I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests~~
- [x] 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 185e0fa1e8
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 185e0fa1e8
Tree-SHA512: 5d05928568cdbc91dbce8090095f55e39c2453cc24dd2350333159e156efda31eac2d8a5ed5b39dc23eb9973057df60b1423e06077ee1bc2269d6235ed70c67a
e2f56de7f4 docs: update manpages for 21.0 (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6081
## What was done?
run `./contrib/devtools/gen-manpages.sh`, sanitize version name
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] 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:
utACK e2f56de7f4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK e2f56de7f4
Tree-SHA512: 9b56f7a31279457aed1b7ed0b627d4364f786948f6df3176e24ab73b68d785fc90d9bf6136d7965c1c5b97b589b4d228edd338e666d1999e841c6e544f054c05
a8a3ea0e90 feat: enable EHF activation of MN_RR on mainnet (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/6081
## What was done?
Removed a code, that disabled MN_RR activation with EHF on Main Net
## How Has This Been Tested?
This code is tested on devnet, is in process of testing on testnet.
## Breaking Changes
It make MN_RR possible to get active on mainnet.
## Checklist:
- [x] 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:
utACK a8a3ea0e90
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK a8a3ea0e90
Tree-SHA512: 0ae7aecca8463436e952154210cf564333cd77dd1149f7ff88ca144f3b7c434e75e473ea3a6850da1b126efd8a9cece34e46b4bf2b37f5937bcf1f5780e18f50
`g_txindex` should be initialized in `TestChainSetup`'s constructor but
in bitcoin#19806 (dash#5236), when portions of the constructor were
split into `mineBlocks()`, `g_txindex`'s init was left behind in the
latter instead of the former. This meant that every `mineBlocks()` call
would re-create a `TxIndex` instance, which is not intended behaviour.
Also, a runtime exception is more appropriate and closer to the usage of
`BOOST_REQUIRE` in other index `Start()` calls than the harsher `assert`
8a66af25e8 docs: add release notes notifying change of default branch to `develop` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
Add a release note notifying the new default branch as `develop`.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] 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:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 8a66af25e8
UdjinM6:
utACK 8a66af25e8
Tree-SHA512: 82212ce670cf4b0f243a79170914ad04b1d118406ce6402b33dfb42a5ae0865c36de4b816530238bb9ded796c66f3dcc36fa9400ace59b6e7dad24ba47653e4f
earlier it was possible to make it all the way to `EncryptSecret`
without actually having the passphrase in hand until being told off
by `CCrypter::SetKey`, we should avoid that.
also, let's get rid of checks that `UpgradeToHD` is now taking
responsibility for. no point in checking if the wallet is unlocked
as it has no bearing on your ability to upgrade the wallet.
additionally, let's do the lock-unlock validation test *before* trying
to generate a new chain. as a bonus, it lets us make sure that we
encrypt the HD chain using a key that's actually capable of unlocking
the wallet.
also, `upgradetohd` never checked if the passphrase was handed to us
(which matters in encrypted blank wallets) before calling UpgradeToHD,
so let's check it for them.
most of the steps are overlapping except for the encryption sections,
which we can make contingent on supplying of the keying material. `res`
isn't used anywhere since we plan on hard crashing if they fail anyway,
so if we got that far, we've already succeeded.
we will validate vMasterKey's size before starting the encryption
routine to prevent a value outside of our control from hard-crashing
the client.
b7c7bff6e0 rpc: remove keypool replenishment stat and warning for descriptor wallet (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Breaking Changes
- `getcoinjoininfo` will no longer report `keys_left` and will not incorrectly warn about keypool depletion with descriptor wallets
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] 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 b7c7bff6e0
knst:
utACK b7c7bff6e0
UdjinM6:
re-utACK b7c7bff6e0
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK b7c7bff6e0
Tree-SHA512: d6e55698a30288308e206566bafb7ea4cd465f37c3f6975410ff15b246500e576ee006da712d28eaa1d4845451f19b218e8c4d11f311b860ed674ad52dca1e0c
c72ec70fdf feat: implement governance RPCs votealias and votemany for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov)
490832959d refactor: new method to generate a signing message in CGovernanceVote (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPCs `governance votemany` and `governance votealias` use forcely LegacyScriptPubKeyMan instead using CWallet's interface.
It causes a failures such as
```
test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: This type of wallet does not support this command (-4)
```
See https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/59 to track progress
## What was done?
Use CWallet's interfaces instead LegacyScriptPubKeyMan
## How Has This Been Tested?
Functional tests `feature_governance.py` and `feature_governance_cl.py` to run by both ways - legacy and descriptor wallets.
Run unit and functional tests.
Extra test done locally:
```diff
--- a/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
+++ b/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
@@ -242,10 +242,10 @@ class BitcoinTestFramework(metaclass=BitcoinTestMetaClass):
if self.options.descriptors is None:
# Prefer BDB unless it isn't available
- if self.is_bdb_compiled():
- self.options.descriptors = False
- elif self.is_sqlite_compiled():
+ if self.is_sqlite_compiled():
self.options.descriptors = True
+ elif self.is_bdb_compiled():
+ self.options.descriptors = False
```
to flip flag descriptor wallets/legacy wallets for all functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
utACK c72ec70fdf
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK c72ec70fdf
Tree-SHA512: 2c18f0d4acb1c4d57da81bf54f0d155682f558eeb7271df7e6fe75c126ef7f047562794a6730e3ca5351abc4e2daded06b874c2ab77f9c47b840c89d8a158c9f
db828177bf Merge #6106: feat: create new composite quorum-command platformsign (pasta)
a45e6df58b Merge #6104: fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta)
7330982631 Merge #6100: feat: make whitelist works with composite commands for platform needs (pasta)
9998ffd92b Merge #6096: feat: split type of error in submitchainlock - return enum in CL verifying code (pasta)
cdf7a25012 Merge #6095: fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (pasta)
c1c2c55690 Merge #6092: fix: mixing for partially unlocked descriptor wallets (pasta)
117548660d Merge #6073: feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Backports a set of 6 PRs needed in rc.2
## What was done?
Backported PRs with labels
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## 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 _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
LGTM, utACK db828177bf
UdjinM6:
utACK db828177bf
Tree-SHA512: 1b242c5db04bd5873ef622543bc2a25e29567f15962c677ea51ff05cb784291968d18f419bf611c206b912e8f15d687208ae75af33aab89038b6f0167d99c4bf
9044522ef76f880760165d98fab024802ccfc062 Drop JSONRPCRequest constructors after #21366 (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
This just makes an additional simplification after #21366 replaced
util::Ref with std::any. It was originally suggested
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21366#issuecomment-792044351 but
delayed for a followup. It would have prevented usage bug
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21572.
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
ACK 9044522ef76f880760165d98fab024802ccfc062, fixed conflict in src/wallet/interfaces.cpp.
Tree-SHA512: e909411b8f75013620b94e1a609296befb832fdcb574cd2e6689bfe3c636b03cd4ac1ccb2b32b532daf0f2131bb043464024966310fffc7e3cad77713d4bd0ef
937fd4a66f048780bffc5e714d0c800de987ce93 Fix wrong wallet RPC context set after #21366 (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
This bug doesn't have any effects currently because it only affects
external signer RPCs which aren't currently using the wallet context,
but it does cause an appveyor failure in a upcoming PR:
https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/38512882
This bug is subtle and could have been avoided if JSONRPCRequest didn't
have constructors that were so loose with type checking. Suggested
change
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21366#issuecomment-792044351
eliminates these and would be a good followup for a future PR.
This PR just implements the simplest possible fix.
ACKs for top commit:
theStack:
Code-review ACK 937fd4a66f048780bffc5e714d0c800de987ce93
meshcollider:
Code review ACK 937fd4a66f048780bffc5e714d0c800de987ce93
Tree-SHA512: 53e6265ed6c7abb47d2b3e77d1604edfeb993c3a2440f0c19679cfeb23516965e6707ff486196a0acfbeff21c79a9a08b5cd33bae9a232d33d0134bca1bd0ff3
9048c58e10841d9e1d709c0a325dd14684cec325 Remove pointer cast in CRPCTable::dumpArgMap (Russell Yanofsky)
14f3d9b908ed9e78997bfaad3d8a06357a89d46e refactor: Add RPC server ExecuteCommands function (Russell Yanofsky)
6158a6d3978a18d5ac4166ca2f59056d8ef71c3d refactor: Replace JSONRPCRequest fHelp field with mode field (Russell Yanofsky)
Pull request description:
This change is needed to fix the `rpc_help.py` test failing in #10102: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5469433013469184?command=ci#L2275
The [`CRPCTable::dumpArgMap`](16b784d953/src/rpc/server.cpp (L492)) method currently works by casting RPC `unique_id` integer field to a function pointer, and then calling it. The `unique_id` field wasn't supposed to be used this way (it's meant to be used to detect RPC aliases) and as a result, this code segfaults in the `rpc_help.py` test in multiprocess PR #10102 because wallet RPC functions aren't directly accessible from the node process.
Fix this by adding a new `GET_ARGS` RPC request mode to retrieve argument information similar to the way the `GET_HELP` mode retrieves help information.
---
This PR is part of the [process separation project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/10).
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
re-ACK 9048c58e10841d9e1d709c0a325dd14684cec325 👑
Tree-SHA512: cd1a01c1daa5bde2c2455b63548371ee4cf39688313969ad2016d9a0fd4344102e3fd43034058f253364518e9632d57cf21abffad0d6a2c0c94b7a6921cbe615
fa04f9b4ddffc5ef23c2ee7f3cc72a7c2ae49204 rpc: Remove duplicate name and argNames from CRPCCommand (MarcoFalke)
fa92912b4bb4629addcbfdfb7cc000be701614af rpc: Use RPCHelpMan for check-rpc-mappings linter (MarcoFalke)
faf835680be39811827504f77005b6603165f53e rpc: [refactor] Use concise C++11 code in CRPCConvertTable constructor (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Currently, the RPC argument names are specified twice to simplify consistency linting. To avoid having to specify the argnames twice when adding new arguments, remove the linter and add an equivalent test based on RPCHelpMan.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK fa04f9b4ddffc5ef23c2ee7f3cc72a7c2ae49204
Tree-SHA512: 3f5f32f5a09b22d879f24aa67031639d2612cff481d6aebc6cfe6fd757cafb3e7bf72120b30466f59292a260747b71e57322c189d5478b668519b9f32fcde31a
2db69d7b81 chore: add release notes for "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
283c5f89a2 feat: create new composite command "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from #6100
With just whitelist it is impossible to limit the RPC `quorum sign` to use only one specific quorum type, this PR aim to provide ability for quorum signing for platform quorum only.
## What was done?
Implemented a new composite command "quorum platformsign"
This composite command let to limit quorum type for signing for case of whitelist.
After that old way to limit platform commands can be deprecated - #6105
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated a functional tests to use platform signing for Asset Unlocks feature.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
utACK 2db69d7b81
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2db69d7b81
Tree-SHA512: b0dff9934137c4faa85664058e1e77f85067cc8d931e6d76ee5b9e610164ac8b0609736d5f09475256cb78d65bf92466624d784f0b13d20136df7e75613662cb
60e36b786a fix: adjust incorrect parameter description that says there is a default that doesn't exist (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This default doesn't actually exist in code.
## What was done?
Remove default from text
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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 _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 60e36b786a
Tree-SHA512: 658eb2cf101d0450619461b7ffe6069de5c04c1fdcca216713f9374cc1e60413ec9b96c3a2931fb69a4c2f8277dd6677100270960a58197da3b92dffb1e9e327
85abbb97b4 chore: add release notes for composite command for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
78ad778bb0 feat: test composite commands in functional test for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
a102a59787 feat: add support of composite commands in RPC'c whitelists (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/66https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/65
## What was done?
Our composite commands such as "quorum list" have been refactored to make them truly compatible with other features, such as whitelist, see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6052https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6051https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6055 and other related PRs
This PR makes whitelist feature to be compatible with composite commands.
Instead implementing additional users such "dapi" better to provide universal way which do not require new build for every new API that has been used by platform, let's simplify things.
Platform at their side can use config such as this one (created based on shumkov's example):
```
rpc: {
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: 9998,
users: [
{
user: 'dashmate',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: null,
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-dapi',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [],
lowPriority: true,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-consensus',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-other',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
],
lowPriority: true,
},
],
allowIps: ['127.0.0.1', '172.16.0.0/12', '192.168.0.0/16'],
},
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated functional tests, see commits
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
LGTM, utACK 85abbb97b4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 85abbb97b4
Tree-SHA512: 88608179c347420269880c352cf9f3b46272f3fc62e8e7158042e53ad69dc460d5210a1f89e1e09081d090250c87fcececade88e2ddec09f73f1175836d7867b
0133c9866d feat: add functional test for submitchainlock far ahead in future (Konstantin Akimov)
6004e06769 feat: return enum in RecoveredSig verifying code, apply for RPC submitchainlock (Konstantin Akimov)
130b6d1e96 refactor: replace static private member method to static method (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently by result of `submitchainlock` impossible to distinct a situation when a signature is invalid and when a core is far behind and just doesn't know about signing quorum yet.
This PR aims to fix this issue, as requested by shumkov for needs of platform:
> mailformed signature and can’t verify signature due to unknown quorum is the same error?
> possible to distingush ?
## What was done?
Return enum in CL verifying code `chainlock_handler.VerifyChainLock`.
The RPC `submitchainlock` now returns error with code=-1 and message `no quorum found. Current tip height: {N} hash: {HASH}`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Functional test `feature_llmq_chainlocks.py` is updated
## Breaking Changes
`submitchainlock` return one more error code - not really a breaking change though, because v21 hasn't released yet.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
utACK 0133c9866d
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 0133c9866d
Tree-SHA512: 794ba410efa57aaa66c47a67914deed97c1d060326e5d11a722c9233a8447f5e9215aa4a5ca401cb2199b8fc445144b2b2a692fc35494bf3296a74e9e115bda7
a42e9df06f fix: createwallet to require 'load_on_startup' for descriptor wallets (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
RPC `createwallet` has changed list of arguments: `createwallet "wallet_name" ( disable_private_keys blank "passphrase" avoid_reuse descriptors load_on_startup )` since https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5965
`load_on_startup` used to be an argument 5 but now it has a number 6. Both arguments 5 and 6 are boolean and it can confuse an user: they may even not notice that something wrong when it meant to be "load on startup" but got "descriptor wallet" which is not expected.
See also previous attempt to resolve issue: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6029
## What was done?
To prevent confusion if user is not aware about this breaking changes, the RPC createwallet throws an exception if user trying to create descriptor wallet but has not mentioned load_on_startup. This requirement can be removed when major amount of users updated to v21.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests
Tested with CLI:
```
$ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true
RPC createwallet would not accept creating descriptor wallets without specifying 'load_on_startup' flag. It is required explicitly in v21 due to breaking changes in createwallet RPC (code -8)
$ createwallet "tmp-create" true true "" false true true
{
"name": "tmp-create",
"warning": "Empty string given as passphrase, wallet will not be encrypted.\nWallet is an experimental descriptor wallet"
}
```
## Breaking Changes
You can't more pass 'descriptor=NN' without https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5965 which has not been released yet.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
utACK a42e9df06f
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK a42e9df06f
thephez:
utACK a42e9df06f
Tree-SHA512: bf57fed40d04a32e756e4f8bfabbe39c0cbf87275546c92f4efc19523bc3c5dd3ddc5a884d67285971dc301a6c5808bef979db52c35645ca2db0810046fe1bdc
faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37 remove CRPCCommand constructor that takes rpcfn_type function pointer (MarcoFalke)
fa19bb2cd8c575593583138a84e6bb3444d6196d remove dead rpc code (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Remove the CRPCCommand arguments, now that they are asserted to be equal and thus redundant
### Future work
> Here or follow up, makes sense to also assert type of returned UniValue?
Sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to submit any further works as follow-ups, including:
* Removing all python regex linters on the args, now that RPCMan can be used to generate any output, including the cli.cpp table
* Auto-formatting and sanity checking the RPCExamples with RPCMan
* Checking passed-in json in self-check. Removing redundant checks
* Checking returned json against documentation to avoid regressions or false documentation
* Compile the RPC documentation at compile-time to ensure it doesn't change at runtime and is completely static
### Bugs found
* The assert identified issue #18607
* The changes itself fixed bug #19250
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
tested ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37
promag:
Tested ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK faaf9c58e4aa809019d4ca12747dd47411988e37. Two obviously good simplifications.
Tree-SHA512: 5de3b440f7b2ed2c3e86655d4f0e2e5df9c67e8ce3c7817d5ea5311d1a38690f2f3e28fab41aad6936be9fc884326d037e5f19e85d4d2fe281474dada13911ee
c944908399 refactor: simplify implementation of function CWallet::IsLocked (Konstantin Akimov)
685cf34cb9 fix: unlock descriptor wallet for mixing-only (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
As [noticed by kwvg](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6090#pullrequestreview-2153639183), mixing doesn't work with descriptor wallets if do "unlock only for mixing". This PR is aiming to fix this issue.
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/59
## What was done?
Removed default argument "bool mixing = false" from WalletStorage interface,
Refactored a logic of CWallet::IsLocked to make it shorter, clearer and unified with bitcoin.
## How Has This Been Tested?
A. Run Dash-Qt with descriptor wallet, run mixing, enter passphrase.
The wallet is partially unlocked (for mixing only) - possible to see yellow lock in status. Mixing happens.
B. Open "send transaction dialog", try to send a transaction: the app asks password to unlock wallet as expected.
Though, I am not sure how exactly to test that **all** rpc are indeed locked when descriptor wallet is unlocked for mixing only.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] 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:
LGTM, ~utACK~ light ACK c944908399
kwvg:
ACK c944908399
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK c944908399
Tree-SHA512: 236c895dd75042449282b051e90781ace1c941a3b2c34bb29ddadb6e62ba9c8d57c2a677ed98847630ff7fb6df4e14d2b59f3473d8f299ec104afeeb8103930c
1a691bd100 feat: add logging for RPC HTTP requests: command, user, http-code, time of running (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently there is no way to gather stats for http rpc in dash core. This PR aim to change it.
## What was done?
Implemented some basic stats for each RPC request:
- rpc command
- flag "is external"
- http status
- time to serve query (rpc time, not http time)
## How Has This Been Tested?
See new logs:
```log
[httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.2] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=quorum is_external=false status=500 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command= is_external=false status=401 elapsed_time_ms=0
[httpworker.3] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=platform-user command=getbestblockhash is_external=true status=200 elapsed_time_ms=28
[httpworker.0] [httprpc.cpp:100] [~RpcHttpRequest] -- HTTP RPC request handled: user=operator command=getbestblockhash is_external=false status=200 elapsed_time_ms=0
```
## Breaking Changes
N/A
It doesn't change behavior of rpc server and http server.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] 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:
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 1a691bd100
Tree-SHA512: b62fceedb9a901e87c23c4aa6e6dfa7226d44da84a081ea245b40e7ff887103302147cebe0f7ff90bf9c8d4fa9ecafbaa6f25f39d2008f62c4f2beeef2877b57
2db69d7b81 chore: add release notes for "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
283c5f89a2 feat: create new composite command "quorum platformsign" (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
It splits from #6100
With just whitelist it is impossible to limit the RPC `quorum sign` to use only one specific quorum type, this PR aim to provide ability for quorum signing for platform quorum only.
## What was done?
Implemented a new composite command "quorum platformsign"
This composite command let to limit quorum type for signing for case of whitelist.
After that old way to limit platform commands can be deprecated - #6105
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated a functional tests to use platform signing for Asset Unlocks feature.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
utACK 2db69d7b81
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 2db69d7b81
Tree-SHA512: b0dff9934137c4faa85664058e1e77f85067cc8d931e6d76ee5b9e610164ac8b0609736d5f09475256cb78d65bf92466624d784f0b13d20136df7e75613662cb
85abbb97b4 chore: add release notes for composite command for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
78ad778bb0 feat: test composite commands in functional test for whitelist (Konstantin Akimov)
a102a59787 feat: add support of composite commands in RPC'c whitelists (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/66https://github.com/dashpay/dash-issues/issues/65
## What was done?
Our composite commands such as "quorum list" have been refactored to make them truly compatible with other features, such as whitelist, see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6052https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6051https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6055 and other related PRs
This PR makes whitelist feature to be compatible with composite commands.
Instead implementing additional users such "dapi" better to provide universal way which do not require new build for every new API that has been used by platform, let's simplify things.
Platform at their side can use config such as this one (created based on shumkov's example):
```
rpc: {
host: '127.0.0.1',
port: 9998,
users: [
{
user: 'dashmate',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: null,
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-dapi',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [],
lowPriority: true,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-consensus',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
lowPriority: false,
},
{
username: 'platform-drive-other',
password: 'rpcpassword',
whitelist: [getbestchainlock,getblockchaininfo,getrawtransaction,submitchainlock,verifychainlock,protx_listdiff,quorum_listextended,quorum_info,getassetunlockstatuses,sendrawtransaction,mnsync_status]
],
lowPriority: true,
},
],
allowIps: ['127.0.0.1', '172.16.0.0/12', '192.168.0.0/16'],
},
```
## How Has This Been Tested?
Updated functional tests, see commits
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] 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:
LGTM, utACK 85abbb97b4
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 85abbb97b4
Tree-SHA512: 88608179c347420269880c352cf9f3b46272f3fc62e8e7158042e53ad69dc460d5210a1f89e1e09081d090250c87fcececade88e2ddec09f73f1175836d7867b
89ade3e340 rpc: disallow `coinjoin stop` if there's no CoinJoin session to stop (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
51b6b94fc0 rpc: make `coinjoin` a composite command (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Breaking Changes
- `coinjoin stop` will now return an error if there is no CoinJoin mixing session to stop
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas **(note: N/A)**
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests **(note: N/A)**
- [x] 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:
knst:
utACK 89ade3e340
UdjinM6:
utACK 89ade3e340
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 89ade3e340
Tree-SHA512: cde350217dd0ad15e5908eaae63773cad79ec6043e4ff902e2a32b57248ae3f3261e3180c7e39d5385eef361b2c14098b308feb648171c689fef5a3e8467381a
