Skip to content

backport: bitcoin#19438 Introduce deploymentstatus (versionbits improvements)#5740

Merged
PastaPastaPasta merged 1 commit into
dashpay:developfrom
knst:bp-versionbits
Dec 1, 2023
Merged

backport: bitcoin#19438 Introduce deploymentstatus (versionbits improvements)#5740
PastaPastaPasta merged 1 commit into
dashpay:developfrom
knst:bp-versionbits

Conversation

@knst
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@knst knst commented Nov 28, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

We had our own solution for avoid locking cs_main that used to work for most cases.
Although, #5736 requires more advanced solution

What was done?

Backport bitcoin#19438

How Has This Been Tested?

Run unit tests/functional tests

Breaking Changes

N/A

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)

@knst knst added this to the 20.1 milestone Nov 28, 2023
@knst knst marked this pull request as ready for review November 29, 2023 09:36
@knst knst mentioned this pull request Nov 29, 2023
Merged
5 tasks
PastaPastaPasta
PastaPastaPasta approved these changes Nov 29, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK for merging via merge commit

ogabrielides
ogabrielides approved these changes Nov 29, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ogabrielides ogabrielides left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

UdjinM6
UdjinM6 approved these changes Nov 29, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

light ACK (reindexed on mainnet/testnet)

@PastaPastaPasta
Merge bitcoin#19438: Introduce deploymentstatus
d70ba2c 
e48826a tests: remove ComputeBlockVersion shortcut from versionbits tests (Anthony Towns)
c5f3672 [refactor] Move ComputeBlockVersion into VersionBitsCache (Anthony Towns)
4a69b4d [move-only] Move ComputeBlockVersion from validation to versionbits (Anthony Towns)
0cfd6c6 [refactor] versionbits: make VersionBitsCache a full class (Anthony Towns)
8ee3e0b [refactor] rpc/blockchain.cpp: SoftForkPushBack (Anthony Towns)
92f48f3 deploymentinfo: Add DeploymentName() (Anthony Towns)
ea68b3a [move-only] Rename versionbitsinfo to deploymentinfo (Anthony Towns)
c64b2c6 scripted-diff: rename versionbitscache (Anthony Towns)
de55304 [refactor] Add versionbits deployments to deploymentstatus.h (Anthony Towns)
2b0d291 [refactor] Add deploymentstatus.h (Anthony Towns)
eccd736 versionbits: Use dedicated lock instead of cs_main (Anthony Towns)
36a4ba0 versionbits: correct doxygen comments (Anthony Towns)

Pull request description:

  Introduces helper functions to make it easy to bury future deployments, along the lines of the suggestion from [11398](bitcoin#11398 (comment)) "I would prefer it if a buried deployment wouldn't require all code paths that check the BIP9 status to require changing".

  This provides three functions: `DeploymentEnabled()` which tests if a deployment can ever be active, `DeploymentActiveAt()` which checks if a deployment should be enforced in the given block, and `DeploymentActiveAfter()` which checks if a deployment should be enforced in the block following the given block, and overloads all three to work both with buried deployments and versionbits deployments.

  This adds a dedicated lock for the versionbits cache, which is acquired internally by the versionbits functions, rather than relying on `cs_main`. It also moves moves versionbitscache into deploymentstatus to avoid a circular dependency with validation.

ACKs for top commit:
  jnewbery:
    ACK e48826a
  gruve-p:
    ACK bitcoin@e48826a
  MarcoFalke:
    re-ACK e48826a 🥈

Tree-SHA512: c846ba64436d36f8180046ad551d8b0d9e20509b9bc185aa2639055fc28803dd8ec2d6771ab337e80da0b40009ad959590d5772f84a0bf6199b65190d4155bed
@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta merged commit 185238b into dashpay:develop Dec 1, 2023
PastaPastaPasta pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2023
@knst
fix: assertion in CMNHFManager due to missing data in evoDB (#5736)
b43af81 
Prior required changes: bitcoin#19438 from
#5740

## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Assertion failure:
```
  assertion: ok
  file: evo/mnhftx.cpp, line: 287
  function: AbstractEHFManager::Signals CMNHFManager::GetFromCache(const CBlockIndex*)
No debug information available for stacktrace. You should add debug information and then run: dash-qt -printcrashinfo=bvcgc43iinzgc43ijfxgm3ybaadwiyltnawxc5e3ifzxgzlsoruw63ramzqws3dvojstucraebqxg43foj2gs33ohiqg62ykeaqgm2lmmu5cazlwn4xw23timz2hqltdobycyidmnfxgkoragi4docraebthk3tdoruw63r2ebawe43uojqwg5cfjbde2ylomftwk4r2hjjwsz3omfwhgicdjvheqrsnmfxgcz3foi5dur3fordhe33ninqwg2dffbrw63ttoqqegqtmn5rwwslomrsxqkrjbyrelhyaaaaaaaedgkiaaaaaaaadsm4qaaaaaaaa7gpyqaaaaaaaa2njraaaaaaaadkl3caaaaaaaabhxznqaaaaaaadqa2eaaaaaaaax33twaaaaaaabwaihqaaaaaaac7yooqbaaaaaahba45qcaaaaaacwkz2aeaaaaaaeitgeaiaaaaaaaa=
dash-qt: evo/mnhftx.cpp:287: AbstractEHFManager::Signals CMNHFManager::GetFromCache(const CBlockIndex*): Assertion `ok' failed.
```

This can happen in case if Dash Core has been update from v19 (or
earlier v20.alphaX) to v20.0.0 after v20 activation without re-indexing

## What was done?
`CMNHFManager` is visiting missing blocks recursively until reach first
v20 block or first block actually saved in evoDb.


Without changes from bitcoin#19438 there's an other issue:
```
2023-11-27T11:12:10Z POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED
Previous lock order was:
 (2) 'cs_main' in llmq/instantsend.cpp:459 (in thread 'isman')
 (1) 'cs_llmq_vbc' in llmq/utils.cpp:711 (in thread 'isman')
Current lock order is:
 'cs_dip3list' in qt/masternodelist.cpp:135 (TRY) (in thread 'main')
 (1) 'cs_llmq_vbc' in llmq/utils.cpp:719 (in thread 'main')
 (2) 'cs_main' in node/blockstorage.cpp:77 (in thread 'main')
Assertion failed: detected inconsistent lock order for 'cs_main' in node/blockstorage.cpp:77 (in thread 'main'), details in debug log.
2023-11-27T11:12:10Z Posix Signal: Aborted
```

## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional test; run dash-qt on my local backup of problematic
storage (succeed without error); reindex testnet.

## 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
- [ ] 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)_
@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 modified the milestones: 20.1, 20.0.2 Dec 4, 2023
@knst knst mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2023
Merged
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@UdjinM6 UdjinM6 UdjinM6 approved these changes

@PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta PastaPastaPasta approved these changes

+1 more reviewer

@ogabrielides ogabrielides ogabrielides approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

20.0.2

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@knst @ogabrielides @UdjinM6 @PastaPastaPasta