397a157e8d refactor: introduce cs_pendingSigns (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Much more minimal version of https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6410; data from testnet while MNs were doing lots of instantsend locking showed minimal contention over signing_shares cs, however, the contention that did exist, most was a result of AsyncSign conflicting with something else. This should resolve the vast majority of contention in signing_shares while minimizing the complication / risk of introducing dead locks compared to 6410
## What was done?
introduce cs_pendingSigns
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built locally
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [ ] 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:
knst:
utACK 397a157e8d
UdjinM6:
utACK 397a157e8d
Tree-SHA512: aac741c274449cf9c22625ac95e964d275dd1454647eaa2fc064c90b44a215e5509c9f9b8aceccbd49002edc21cbea883900f202204aa2138c104f4989ae5e26
c48efdac83 fix(qt): avoid potential precision loss in amounts on Governance Tab (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6403#discussion_r1847834174
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
knst:
utACK c48efdac83
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK c48efdac83
Tree-SHA512: 705bc154e10150e32e3ff04d4a90de14e29ffd195cc9f94a753dd1b4588f2730d6526cd66d851005b956e0d074d39250d142baa946bea8df95dbc92718931762
5078baea2b fix(test): wait for chainlock before mining a block we expect to include said chainlock (pasta)
f39c1e6f4c fix: guard m_can_tx_relay behind m_tx_relay_mutex; make it private; add additional annotations (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
See each commit; fixes two bugs, both discovered while running feature_llmq_chainlocks.py with tsan / debug.
one a datarace in net_processing.cpp and the other in the test I was using to ensure this fix was correct, feature_llmq_chainlocks
## What was done?
### net_processing.cpp
You can see the datarace here: https://gist.github.com/PastaPastaPasta/c966a9f805758b34524085e3d52ea7f8
We simply guard it with an existing mutex that is always locked in close proximity.
### feature_llmq_chainlocks.py
Most of the time, while generating the cycle quorum, there is sufficient time to generate a chainlock; however, this is racey, and I've observed locally where the block gets generated before a chainlock is present and as such `test_coinbase_best_cl` fails. We should instead wait for the chainlock first, and then mine the block. This was we can ensure the mined block will include that chainlock.
This was observed locally maybe 1/10 times or so
## How Has This Been Tested?
ran feature_llmq_chainlocks.py ~40 times locally with tsan / debug
## Breaking Changes
None
## 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
- [ ] 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:
utACK 5078baea2b
knst:
utACK 5078baea2b
UdjinM6:
utACK 5078baea2b
Tree-SHA512: b346fc60809df72d0161f625073dce7062bd2641d35e4f80160fac9afeec63707de552e2856940ac2604875908ae3b98a225d352de36bfbfc6ee3fbe1e1538ff
5741d5da28 chore: update seeds (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
2d732fc66e chore: drop defunct onion seeds, add new existing onion hosts as seeds (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Update onion seeds for upcoming version
## What was done?
Update onion seeds to reflect latest status
## How Has This Been Tested?
As of today, all of these are able to be connected to on port 9999; I've not actually connected to all of them and verified they're on latest core or something like that; but their addresses my core knows about, and are able to be trivially connected to
## Breaking Changes
## 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 _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
ACKs for top commit:
kwvg:
utACK 5741d5da28
UdjinM6:
utACK 5741d5da28
Tree-SHA512: 541bcc510b2ebf6de08ac91f2b7e5b1c910536dca9bab0b38930d6e5cfa1cd05e8c014ba4c74c14c43ed211cda3275fffb5baaf1489bbd1221567130d804b0ec
d728879329 chore: bump develop to be 22.1.0 (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Develop is now for 22.1
## What was done?
## 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:
utACK d728879329
UdjinM6:
utACK d728879329
Tree-SHA512: 3ce6d37c43925c59a581cb7d518279c23cbf412b5511a3fa46dc1dd479da8a5d6bd3c40615f88e3db5bd6452ad3d9246901057055db91e3387e9d7c452e5c730
0072318421 refactor: drop unused parameter mninfos_valid in test framework mine_cycle_quorum (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
This param is unused
## What was done?
Removed
## How Has This Been Tested?
see ci
## 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:
knst:
utACK 0072318421
UdjinM6:
utACK 0072318421
Tree-SHA512: e66e2b23b95b98e843fdb1d58419ba0798e8ba4115ef6c52e2e4681b04ea3e43efe73cee0ac96758560914567f822d107169ca0d6212210e07cc81b317a3e2eb
As of today, all of these are able to be connected to on port 9999; I've not actually connected to all of them and verified they're on latest core or something like that; but their addresses my core knows about, and are able to be trivially connected to
3f2e064b18 refactor: set `const auto& cbTx` to avoid using optional throughout method (pasta)
0c0d91e491 fix: functional test feature_llmq_chainlocks.py should activate MN_RR instead v20 (Konstantin Akimov)
af93e877f2 refactor: removed pre-MN_RR logic of validation of CL (Konstantin Akimov)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
The fork MN_RR is active awhile on testnet and mainnet and no more need legacy check
## What was done?
Removes legacy version of checks for CL and related functional tests
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit / functional test - DONE
Reindex testnet - DONE
Reindex mainnet - DONE
## Breaking Changes
Removed pre-mn_rr version of checks for CL.
It's no more relevant on mainnet and testnet.
It affects behavior on new devnets and regtest for pre-mn_rr activation blocks.
## 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
ACKs for top commit:
UdjinM6:
utACK 3f2e064b18
Tree-SHA512: 8b4b3a20a54602f4df9d98e17c79004214493b15c0bce9c08c68d667a5cba86b817947f008d646c48ef9f2f86676c02085c7d0ed36e83548ef5425b64faffb89
Most of the time, while generating the cycle quorum, there is sufficient time to generate a chainlock; however, this is racey, and I've observed locally where the block gets generated before a chainlock is present and as such `test_coinbase_best_cl` fails. We should instead wait for the chainlock first, and then mine the block. This was we can ensure the mined block will include that chainlock.
This was observed locally maybe 1/10 times or so
Originally introduced in pr 6365; this datarace was discovered using tsan locally, and running feature_llmq_chainlocks 5 times. 1 out of 5 times failed
ba7e500062 refactor: more of 24306 (GetPathArg in Dash-specific code) (UdjinM6)
562e3f7b18 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24371: util: Fix ReadBinaryFile reading beyond maxsize (MarcoFalke)
3383b79049 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24312: addrman: Log too low compat value (MarcoFalke)
d96983a327 Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#24306: util: Make ArgsManager::GetPathArg more widely usable (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
A few simple backports
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built locally; see CI
## 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 ba7e500062
kwvg:
utACK ba7e500062
Tree-SHA512: 42f41cb04945af15bfa4581ae53354eec88d4cdec44ab7c0100edcfe2fa71a95e05073e76b8d3935bd05cd5ee1f5cd5b34d2ed99e7eb551475abdc77f1ffff7c
2f18c1af30 ci: deduplicate depends building (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently we build the same host / options multiple times. Don't do this!
## What was done?
Now building depends only twice
## How Has This Been Tested?
Local CI appears to be working
## 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:
kwvg:
utACK 2f18c1af30
UdjinM6:
utACK 2f18c1af30
Tree-SHA512: 67460508a2e9458152f7c8bb5f4a1a786aedcfded0e5c54fb03d85010ba8bb87362b66a0c322b51aeba75752e36418fc235d8dc4197ef10695e234ccc5a00a39
9604d87af1 ci: cache depends/built like gitlab (pasta)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Depends build didn't seem to be caching properly
## What was done?
changed depends/${{ matrix.host }} to depends/built as gitlab does
## How Has This Been Tested?
Depends "build" now takes only ~1 minute instead of ~15 minutes in CI: https://github.com/PastaPastaPasta/dash/actions/runs/11899038167
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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 9604d87af1
kwvg:
utACK 9604d87af1
Tree-SHA512: 63d2321f41b284be6cc2f0b2d53294cf220b1623af464d411225c0e43ec14268e1c3a701e23973e5c641925b6ea28dcb92062d8cefb9e6baed6ac5bb619ce1a1
c5d5b14205 ci: add powerpc64 to GH Guix job matrix (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
I guess we should make sure that binaries for every possible platform can be built via Guix with no issues even if we do not want to provide "official" binaries for it.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] 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
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 6464b68a47e680bb379c82842599200d6917adb8f1493fa75ac80ddc7a6fea92a9190215cfa3f32b0bd88e2dd0425d4eb13846ea2d7e19e144afff9c1171ff13
fa097d074bc1afcc2a52976796bb618f7c6a68b3 addrman: Log too low compat value (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Before this patch, when writing a negative `lowest_compatible` value, it would be read as a positive value. For example `-32` will be read as `224`. There is generally nothing wrong with that. Though, similarly there shouldn't be anything wrong with refusing to read a negative value. I find the code after this patch more logical than before. Also, this allows dropping a file-wide sanitizer suppression.
In practice none of this should ever happen. Bitcoin Core would never write a negative `lowest_compatible` in normal operation, unless the file storage is later corrupted by external influence.
ACKs for top commit:
mzumsande:
re-ACK fa097d074bc1afcc2a52976796bb618f7c6a68b3
Tree-SHA512: 9aae7b8fe666f52f667f149667025e0160cef1a793cc4d392e36608f65c2bee8096da429235118f40a3368f327aabe30f3732ae78c5874648ea6f423f2687b65
60aa179d8f9a675efa2d78eaadc09e3ba450f50f Use GetPathArg where possible (Pavol Rusnak)
5b946edd73640c6ecdfb4cbac1d4351e634678dc util, refactor: Use GetPathArg to read "-settings" value (Ryan Ofsky)
687e655ae2970f2f13aca0267c7de86dc69be763 util: Add GetPathArg default path argument (Ryan Ofsky)
Pull request description:
Improve `ArgsManager::GetPathArg` method added in recent PR #24265, so it is usable more places. This PR starts to use it for the `-settings` option. This can also be helpful for #24274 which is parsing more path options.
- Add `GetPathArg` default argument so it is less awkward to use to parse options that have default values.
- Fix `GetPathArg` negated argument handling. Return path{} not path{"0"} when path argument is negated.
- Add unit tests for default and negated cases
- Move `GetPathArg` method declaration next to `GetArg` declaration. The two methods are close substitutes for each, so this should help keep them consistent and make them more discoverable.
ACKs for top commit:
w0xlt:
Tested ACK 60aa179 on Ubuntu 21.10
hebasto:
re-ACK 60aa179d8f9a675efa2d78eaadc09e3ba450f50f
Tree-SHA512: 3d24b885d8bbeef39ea5d0556e2f09b9e5f4a21179cef11cbbbc1b84da29c8fb66ba698889054ce28d80bc25926687654c8532ed46054bf5b2dd1837866bd1cd
1506d9d9b8 merge bitcoin#29072: use `-no_exported_symbols` on macOS (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
9247960c3e merge bitcoin#30198: qt 5.15.14 and fix macOS build with Clang 18 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
5585e7a849 merge bitcoin#30074: use ENV flags in get_arch (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
decd420ca1 merge bitcoin#29739: swap cctools otool for llvm-objdump (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
0f8c420f2c merge bitcoin#29890: remove some tools when cross-compiling for macOS (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
936da1a3d3 merge bitcoin#29732: qt 5.15.13 (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
c294b47487 revert: patch qt to make placeholders differ from actual text (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
af7090c68e merge bitcoin#29598: don't use -h with touch on OpenBSD (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
ebf8ff2a34 merge bitcoin#29298: patch libtool out of libnatpmp/miniupnpc (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
070b8768a5 merge bitcoin#29233: depends move macOS C(XX) FLAGS out of C & CXX (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
d838481f96 revert dash#2398: Force fvisibility=hidden when compiling on macos (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
59a18f9fb9 merge bitcoin#29170: add macho branch protection check (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
cb024d968b merge bitcoin#29185: remove `--enable-lto` (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
6d75a81f62 merge bitcoin#28880: switch to using LLVM 17.x for macOS builds (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
7b0a1f2256 merge bitcoin#28622: use macOS 14 SDK (Xcode 15.0) (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
02eb73513e merge bitcoin#24948: fix typo in permissions (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
2739107de3 merge bitcoin#24534: make gen-sdk deterministic (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
ab10bf9692 merge bitcoin#24241: cleanup doc on need of Developer Account to obtain macOS SDK (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh)
Pull request description:
## Additional Information
* Dependent on https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6384
* Dependency for https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/6389
* The Qt patch introduced in [dash#5596](https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/5596), `fix_qt_placeholders.patch`, was a portion of a suggested workaround for QTBUG-92199 ([source](https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-92199?focusedId=669719&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-669719)) but since then, a fix ([here](https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/434310)) has made its way to 5.15.12 and we are upgrading to 5.15.14 from 5.15.11.
So we can safely remove this patch.
## Breaking Changes
None expected
## 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
- [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:
UdjinM6:
utACK 1506d9d9b8
PastaPastaPasta:
utACK 1506d9d9b8
Tree-SHA512: df8e4ea0ce9e7b269d248518698f0566b5eca1a54cdfb53f5b213b90fb5177e5a5df44eaeb6f3fc014cd93351c9245736bb2fd52bc2af4ae274d8fa93e601b07
