cbc6c440e3 doc: add comments and release-notes for JSON-RPC 2.0 (Matthew Zipkin)
e7ee80dcf2 rpc: JSON-RPC 2.0 should not respond to "notifications" (Matthew Zipkin)
bf1a1f1662 rpc: Avoid returning HTTP errors for JSON-RPC 2.0 requests (Matthew Zipkin)
466b90562f rpc: Add "jsonrpc" field and drop null "result"/"error" fields (Matthew Zipkin)
2ca1460ae3 rpc: identify JSON-RPC 2.0 requests (Matthew Zipkin)
a64a2b77e0 rpc: refactor single/batch requests (Matthew Zipkin)
df6e3756d6 rpc: Avoid copies in JSONRPCReplyObj() (Matthew Zipkin)
09416f9ec4 test: cover JSONRPC 2.0 requests, batches, and notifications (Matthew Zipkin)
4202c170da test: refactor interface_rpc.py (Matthew Zipkin)
Pull request description:
Closes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2960
Bitcoin Core's JSONRPC server behaves with a special blend of 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 behaviors. This introduces compliance issues with more strict clients. There are the major misbehaviors that I found:
- returning non-200 HTTP codes for RPC errors like "Method not found" (this is not a server error or an HTTP error)
- returning both `"error"` and `"result"` fields together in a response object.
- different error-handling behavior for single and batched RPC requests (batches contain errors in the response but single requests will actually throw HTTP errors)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15495 added regression tests after a discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15381 to kinda lock in our RPC behavior to preserve backwards compatibility.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12435 was an attempt to allow strict 2.0 compliance behind a flag, but was abandoned.
The approach in this PR is not strict and preserves backwards compatibility in a familiar bitcoin-y way: all old behavior is preserved, but new rules are applied to clients that opt in. One of the rules in the [JSON RPC 2.0 spec](https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#request_object) is that the kv pair `"jsonrpc": "2.0"` must be present in the request. Well, let's just use that to trigger strict 2.0 behavior! When that kv pair is included in a request object, the [response will adhere to strict JSON-RPC 2.0 rules](https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification#response_object), essentially:
- always return HTTP 200 "OK" unless there really is a server error or malformed request
- either return `"error"` OR `"result"` but never both
- same behavior for single and batch requests
If this is merged next steps can be:
- Refactor bitcoin-cli to always use strict 2.0
- Refactor the python test framework to always use strict 2.0 for everything
- Begin deprecation process for 1.0/1.1 behavior (?)
If we can one day remove the old 1.0/1.1 behavior we can clean up the rpc code quite a bit.
ACKs for top commit:
cbergqvist:
re ACK cbc6c440e3
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK cbc6c440e3. Just suggested changes since the last review: changing uncaught exception error code from PARSE_ERROR to MISC_ERROR, renaming a few things, and adding comments.
tdb3:
re ACK for cbc6c440e3
Tree-SHA512: 0b702ed32368b34b29ad570d090951a7aeb56e3b0f2baf745bd32fdc58ef68fee6b0b8fad901f1ca42573ed714b150303829cddad4a34ca7ad847350feeedb36
0fb17bf61a [log] updates in TxOrphanage (glozow)
b16da7eda7 [functional test] attackers sending mutated orphans (glozow)
6675f6428d [unit test] TxOrphanage handling of same-txid-different-witness txns (glozow)
8923edfc1f [p2p] allow entries with the same txid in TxOrphanage (glozow)
c31f148166 [refactor] TxOrphanage::EraseTx by wtxid (glozow)
efcc593017 [refactor] TxOrphanage::HaveTx only by wtxid (glozow)
7e475b9648 [p2p] don't query orphanage by txid (glozow)
Pull request description:
Part of #27463 in the "make orphan handling more robust" section.
Currently the main map in `TxOrphanage` is indexed by txid; we do not allow 2 transactions with the same txid into TxOrphanage. This means that if we receive a transaction and want to store it in orphanage, we'll fail to do so if a same-txid-different-witness version of the tx already exists in the orphanage. The existing orphanage entry can stay until it expires 20 minutes later, or until we find that it is invalid.
This means an attacker can try to block/delay us accepting an orphan transaction by sending a mutated version of the child ahead of time. See included test.
Prior to #28970, we don't rely on the orphanage for anything and it would be relatively difficult to guess what transaction will go to a node's orphanage. After the parent(s) are accepted, if anybody sends us the correct transaction, we'll end up accepting it. However, this is a bit more painful for 1p1c: it's easier for an attacker to tell when a tx is going to hit a node's orphanage, and we need to store the correct orphan + receive the parent before we'll consider the package. If we start out with a bad orphan, we can't evict it until we receive the parent + try the 1p1c, and then we'll need to download the real child, put it in orphanage, download the parent again, and then retry 1p1c.
ACKs for top commit:
AngusP:
ACK 0fb17bf61a
itornaza:
trACK 0fb17bf61a
instagibbs:
ACK 0fb17bf61a
theStack:
ACK 0fb17bf61a
sr-gi:
crACK [0fb17bf](0fb17bf61a)
stickies-v:
ACK 0fb17bf61a
Tree-SHA512: edcbac7287c628bc27036920c2d4e4f63ec65087fbac1de9319c4f541515d669fc4e5fdc30c8b9a248b720da42b89153d388e91c7bf5caf4bc5b3b931ded1f59
For JSON-RPC 2.0 requests we need to distinguish between
a missing "id" field and "id":null. This is accomplished
by making the JSONRPCRequest id property a
std::optional<UniValue> with a default value of
UniValue::VNULL.
A side-effect of this change for non-2.0 requests is that request which do not
specify an "id" field will no longer return "id": null in the response.
Avoid returning HTTP status errors for non-batch JSON-RPC 2.0 requests if the
RPC method failed but the HTTP request was otherwise valid. Batch requests
already did not return HTTP errors previously.
We want to ensure that even if topologies
that are acceptable are relaxed, like
removing package-not-child-with-unconfirmed-parents,
that we don't end up accepting packages we shouldn't.
e912717ff6 test: add missing comparison of node1's mempool in MempoolPackagesTest (umiumi)
Pull request description:
#29941 Recreated a pull request because there was a conflict. Trying to resolve the conflict but the old one automatically closed.
Add missing comparison for TODO comments in `mempool_packages.py`
Also, notice that the ancestor size limits and descendant size limits actually implemented in #21800 , so I removed the todo for those two size limits.
ACKs for top commit:
kevkevinpal:
ACK [e912717](e912717ff6)
achow101:
ACK e912717ff6
alfonsoromanz:
Tested ACK e912717ff6. The code looks good to me and the test execution is successful.
rkrux:
tACK [e912717](e912717ff6)
Tree-SHA512: 8cb51746b0547369344c9ceef59599bfe9c91d424687af5e24dc6641f9e99fb433515d79c724e71fd3d5e02994f0cef623d3674367b8296b05c3c6fcdde282ef
fd6a7d3a13 test: use sleepy wait-for-log in reindex readonly (Matthew Zipkin)
Pull request description:
Also rename the busy wait-for-log method to prevent recurrence. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27039#discussion_r1532578152
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
utACK fd6a7d3a13
achow101:
ACK fd6a7d3a13
tdb3:
ACK for fd6a7d3a13
rkrux:
ACK [fd6a7d3](fd6a7d3a13)
Tree-SHA512: 7ff0574833df1ec843159b35ee88b8bb345a513ac13ed0b72abd1bf330c454a3f9df4d927871b9e3d37bfcc07542b06ef63acef8e822cd18499adae8cbb0cda8
dd8fa86193 test: use tagged ephemeral MiniWallet instance in fill_mempool (Sebastian Falbesoner)
b2037ad4ae test: add MiniWallet tagging support to avoid UTXO mixing (Sebastian Falbesoner)
c8e6d08236 test: refactor: eliminate COINBASE_MATURITY magic number in fill_mempool (Sebastian Falbesoner)
4f347140b1 test: refactor: move fill_mempool to new module mempool_util (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Different MiniWallet instances using the same mode (either ADDRESS_OP_TRUE, RAW_OP_TRUE or RAW_P2PK) currently always create and spend UTXOs with identical output scripts, which can cause unintentional tx dependencies (see e.g. the discussion in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29827#discussion_r1565443465). In order to avoid mixing of UTXOs between instances, this PR introduces the possibility to provide a MiniWallet tag name, that is used to derive a different internal key for the taproot construction, leading to a different P2TR output script. Note that since we use script-path spending and only the key-path is changed here, no changes in the MiniWallet spending logic are needed.
The new tagging option is then used in the `fill_mempool` helper to create an ephemeral wallet for the filling txs, as suggested in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29827#discussion_r1565964264. To avoid circular dependencies, `fill_mempool` is moved to a new module `mempool_util.py` first.
I'm still not sure if a generic word like "tag" is the right term for what this tries to achieve, happy to pick up better suggestions. Also, maybe passing a tag name is overkill and a boolean flag like "random_output_script" is sufficient?
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
ACK dd8fa86193
achow101:
ACK dd8fa86193
rkrux:
tACK [dd8fa86](dd8fa86193)
brunoerg:
utACK dd8fa86193
Tree-SHA512: 5ef3558c3ef5ac32cfa79c8f751972ca6bceaa332cd7daac7e93412a88e30dec472cb041c0845b04abf8a317036d31ebddfc3234e609ed442417894c2bdeeac9
d53d848347 test: adds outbound eviction tests for non outbound-full-relay peers (Sergi Delgado Segura)
a8d9a0edc7 test: adds outbound eviction functional tests, updates comment in ConsiderEviction (Sergi Delgado Segura)
Pull request description:
## Motivation
While checking the outbound eviction code I realized a case was not considered within the comments, which in turn made me realize we had no functional tests for the outbound eviction case (when I went to check/add the test case).
This PR updates the aforementioned comment and adds functional tests to cover the outbound eviction logic, in addition to the existing unit tests found at `src/test/denialofservice_tests.cpp`.
ACKs for top commit:
davidgumberg:
reACK d53d848347
tdb3:
Re ACK for d53d848347
achow101:
ACK d53d848347
cbergqvist:
ACK d53d848347
Tree-SHA512: 633b84bb1229fe21e2f650c1beada33ca7f190b64eafd64df2266516d21175e5d652e019ff7114f00cb8bd19f5817dc19e65adf75767a88e24dc0842ce40c63e
b259b0e8d3 [Test] Assumeutxo: ensure failure when importing a snapshot twice (Alfonso Roman Zubeldia)
Pull request description:
I am getting familiar with the `assume_utxo` tests and I found that the scenario of trying to activate a snapshot twice is not covered. This test is to ensure failure when loading a snapshot if there is already a snapshot-based chainstate.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
Code review ACK b259b0e8d3
kevkevinpal:
tACK [b259b0e](b259b0e8d3)
achow101:
ACK b259b0e8d3
rkrux:
tACK [b259b0e](b259b0e8d3)
Tree-SHA512: 3510861390d0e40cdad6861b728df04827a1b63e642f3d956aee66ed2770b1cb7e3aa3eb00c62eb9da0544703c943cc5296936c9ebfcac18c719741c354421bb
78e52f663f doc: rpc: fix submitpackage examples (stickies-v)
1a875d4049 rpc: update min package size error message in submitpackage (stickies-v)
f9ece258aa doc: rpc: submitpackage takes sorted array (stickies-v)
17f74512f0 test: add bounds checking for submitpackage RPC (stickies-v)
Pull request description:
`submitpackage` requires the package to be topologically sorted with the child being the last element in the array, but this is not documented in the RPC method or the error messages.
Also sneaking in some other minor improvements that I found while going through the code:
- Informing the user that `package` needs to be an array of length between `1` and `MAX_PACKAGE_COUNT` is confusing when `IsChildWithPackage()` requires that the package size >= 2. Remove this check to avoid code duplication and sending a confusing error message.
- fixups to the `submitpackage` examples
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK 78e52f663f
instagibbs:
ACK 78e52f663f
achow101:
ACK 78e52f663f
glozow:
utACK 78e52f663f
Tree-SHA512: a8845621bb1cbf784167fc7c82cb8ceb105868b65b26d3465f072d1c04ef3699e85a21a524ade805d423bcecbc34f7d5bff12f2c21cbd902ae1fb154193ebdc9
98570fe29b test: add coverage for parsing cryptographically invalid pubkeys (Sebastian Falbesoner)
c740b154d1 rpc: use `HexToPubKey` helper for all legacy pubkey-parsing RPCs (Sebastian Falbesoner)
100e8a75bf rpc: check and throw specific pubkey parsing errors in `HexToPubKey` (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
Parsing legacy public keys can fail for three reasons (in this order):
- pubkey is not in hex
- pubkey has an invalid length (not 33 or 65 bytes for compressed/uncompressed, respectively)
- pubkey is crytographically invalid, i.e. is not on curve (`CPubKey.IsFullyValid()` check)
Many RPCs currently perform these checks manually with different error messages, even though we already have a `HexToPubKey` helper. This PR puts all three checks in this helper (the length check was done on the call-sites before), adds specific error messages for each case, and consequently uses it for all RPCs that parse legacy pubkeys. This leads to deduplicated code and also to more consistent and detailed error messages for the user.
Affected RPC calls are `createmultisig`, `addmultisigaddress`, `importpubkey`, `importmulti`, `fundrawtransaction`, `walletcreatefundedpsbt`, `send` and `sendall`.
Note that the error code (-5 a.k.a. `RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY`) doesn't change in any of the causes, so the changes are not breaking RPC API compatibility. Only the messages are more specific.
The last commits adds test coverage for the cryptographically invalid (not-on-curve) pubkey case which wasn't exercised before.
ACKs for top commit:
stratospher:
tested ACK 98570fe.
davidgumberg:
ACK 98570fe29b
Eunovo:
Tested ACK 98570fe29b
achow101:
ACK 98570fe29b
Tree-SHA512: cfa474176e95b5b18f3a9da28fdd9e87195cd58994c1331198f2840925fff322fd323a6371feab74a1b32e4b9ea58a6dc732fa751b4cdd45402c1029af609ece
ee67bba76c test: added test coverage to loadtxoutset (kevkevin)
Pull request description:
The functional test coverage did not cover the rpc error of "Couldn't open file..." for loadtxoutset and this test adds coverage for it
This adds coverage to this line
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/rpc/blockchain.cpp#L2777
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK ee67bba76c
davidgumberg:
LGTM ACK ee67bba76c
rkrux:
ACK [ee67bba](ee67bba76c)
alfonsoromanz:
ACK ee67bba76c. Code looks good to me. I also ran `test/functional/feature_assumeutxo.py` to make sure all tests passes, including this one.
tdb3:
ACK for ee67bba76c
Tree-SHA512: 210a7eb928f625d2a8d9acb63ee83cb4aaec9c267e5a0c52ad219c2935466e2cdc68667e30ad29566e6060981587e5bec42805d296f6e60f9b3b13f3330575f2
42fb5311b1 rpc: return warnings as an array instead of just a single one (stickies-v)
Pull request description:
The RPC documentation for `getblockchaininfo`, `getmininginfo` and `getnetworkinfo` states that "warnings" returns "any network and blockchain warnings". In practice, only a single warning (i.e. the latest one that is set) is returned, the other ones are ignored.
Fix that by returning all warnings as an array.
As a side benefit, clean up the GetWarnings() logic.
Since this PR changes the RPC result schema, I've added release notes. Users can temporarily revert to the old results by using `-deprecatedrpc=warnings`, until it's removed in a future version.
---
Some historical context from git log:
- when `GetWarnings` was introduced in 401926283a, it was used in the `getinfo` RPC, where only a [single error/warning was returned](401926283a (diff-7442c48d42cd5455a79915a0f00cce5e13359db46437a32b812876edb0a5ccddR250)) (similar to how it is now).
- later on, "warnings" RPC response fields were introduced, e.g. in ef2a3de25c, with the description [stating](ef2a3de25c (diff-1021bd3c74415ad9719bd764ad6ca35af5dfb33b1cd863c0be49bdf52518af54R411)) that it returned "any network warnings" but in practice still only a single warning was returned
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
re-ACK 42fb5311b1
tdb3:
Re ACK for 42fb5311b1
TheCharlatan:
ACK 42fb5311b1
maflcko:
ACK 42fb5311b1🔺
Tree-SHA512: 4225ed8979cd5f030dec785a80e7452a041ad5703445da79d2906ada983ed0bbe7b15889d663d75aae4a77d92e302c93e93eca185c7bd47c9cce29e12f752bd3
This exercises the bug fixed by previous commits, where
we were unable to generate and sign for segwit redeem scripts
(in this case multisig redeem scripts) longer than 520 bytes.
and also, this adds coverage for legacy 15-15 multisig script
generation and signing.
And also, simplified the test a bit by re-using the already existing 'wallet_multi'
(instead of creating a new one). Plus, removed the 'is_bdb_compiled()' calls
which were there basically to check if the test has the wallet compiled or not.
The function exists merely to check that the node2's wallet
received the transactions created during all the 'do_multisig()'
calls.
It was created as a standalone function because 'getbalance()'
only returns something when transactions are confirmed. So,
the rationale on that time was to have a method mining blocks
to confirm the recently created transactions to be able to
check the incoming balance.
This is why we have the "moved" class field.
This change removes all the hardcoded amounts and verifies
node2 balance reception directly inside 'do_multisig()'.
Cleaning up the test in the following ways:
* Generate priv-pub key pairs used for testing only once (instead of doing it 4 times).
* Simplifies 'wmulti' wallet creation, load and unload process.
* Removes confusing class members initialized and updated inside a nested for-loop.
* Simplifies do_multisig() outpoint detection:
The outpoint index information is already contained in MiniWallet's
`send_to` return value dictionary as "sent_vout".
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Falbesoner <sebastian.falbesoner@gmail.com>
ffc674595c Replace remaining "520" magic numbers with MAX_SCRIPT_ELEMENT_SIZE (Jon Atack)
Pull request description:
Noticed these while reviewing BIPs yesterday.
It would be clearer and more future-proof to refer to their constant name.
ACKs for top commit:
instagibbs:
ACK ffc674595c
sipa:
ACK ffc674595c
achow101:
ACK ffc674595c
glozow:
ACK ffc674595c, agree it's clearer for these comments to refer to the greppable name of the limit rather than the number
Tree-SHA512: 462afc1c64543877ac58cb3acdb01d42c6d08abfb362802f29f3482d75401a2a8adadbc2facd222a9a9fefcaab6854865ea400f50ad60bec17831d29f7798afe
ec1f1abfef test:Validate UTXO snapshot with coin_height > base_height & amount > money_supply (jrakibi)
Pull request description:
### Ensure snapshot loading fails for coins exceeding base height
**Objective**: This test verifies that snapshot loading is correctly rejected for coins with a height greater than the base height.
**Update**:
- Added `test_invalid_snapshot_wrong_coin_code` to `feature_assumeutxo.py`.
- The test artificially sets a coin's height above 299 in a snapshot and checks for load failure.
- Edit: Added a test case for outputs whose amounts surpass the MAX_MONEY supply limit.
This implementation addresses the request for enhancing `assumeutxo` testing as outlined in issue #28648
---
**Edit: This is an explanation on how I arrive at content values: b"\x84\x58" and b"\xCA\xD2\x8F\x5A"**
You can use this tool to decode the utxo snapshot https://github.com/jrakibi/utxo-live
Here’s an overview of how it’s done:
The serialization format for a UTXO in the snapshot is as follows:
1. Transaction ID (txid) - 32 bytes
2. Output Index (outnum)- 4 bytes
3. VARINT (code) - A varible-length integer encoding the height and whether the transaction is a coinbase. The format of this VARINT is (height << 1) | coinbase_flag.
4. VARINT (amount_v) - A variable-length integer that represents a compressed format of the output amount (in satoshis).
For the test cases mentioned:
* **`b"\x84\x58"`** - This value corresponds to a VARINT representing the height and coinbase flag. Once we decode this code, we can extract the height and coinbase using `height = code_decoded >> 1` and `coinbase = code_decoded & 0x01`. In our case, with code_decoded = 728, it results in `height = 364` and `coinbase = 0`.
* **`b"\xCA\xD2\x8F\x5A"`** - This byte sequence represents a compressed amount value. The decompression function takes this value and translates it into a full amount in satoshis. In our case, the decompression of this amount translates to a number larger than the maximum allowed value of coins (21 million BTC)
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK ec1f1abfef
maflcko:
ACK ec1f1abfef👑
achow101:
ACK ec1f1abfef
Tree-SHA512: 42b36fd1d76e9bc45861028acbb776bd2710c5c8bff2f75c751ed505995fbc1d4bc698df3be24a99f20bcf6a534615d2d9678fb3394162b88133eaec88ca2120
e504b1fa1f test: Add test case for spending bare multisig (Brandon Odiwuor)
Pull request description:
Fixes https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29113
ACKs for top commit:
ajtowns:
ACK e504b1fa1f ; LGTM and just checking the 1-of-3 case seems fine
maflcko:
utACK e504b1fa1f
achow101:
ACK e504b1fa1f
willcl-ark:
reACK e504b1fa1f
Tree-SHA512: 641a12599efa34e1a3eb65b125318df326628fef3e6886410ea9e63a044664fad7bcad46d1d6f41ddc59630746b9963cedb569c2682b5940b32b9225883da8f2
The RPC documentation for `getblockchaininfo`, `getmininginfo` and
`getnetworkinfo` states that "warnings" returns "any network and
blockchain warnings". In practice, only a single warning is returned.
Fix that by returning all warnings as an array.
As a side benefit, cleans up the GetWarnings() logic.
