c9136ca906 validation: fix issue with an interrupted -reindex (Martin Zumsande)
a2675897e2 validation: Don't loop over all chainstates in LoadExternalBlock (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
If a user interrupts a reindex while it is iterating over the block files, it will continue to reindex with the next node start (if the `-reindex` arg is dropped, otherwise it will start reindexing from scratch).
However, due to an early call to `ActivateBestChainState()` that only exists to connect the genesis block during
the original `-reindex`, it wil start connecting blocks immediately before having iterated through all block files.
Because later headers above the minchainwork threshold won't be loaded in this case, `-assumevalid` will not
be applied and the process is much slower due to script validation being done.
Fix this by only calling `ActivateBestChainState()` here if Genesis is not connected yet (equivalent to `ActiveHeight() == -1`).
Also simplify this spot by only doing this for the active chainstate instead of looping over all chainstates (first commit).
This issue was discussed in the thread below https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31346#discussion_r1856824817, the impact on assumevalid was found by l0rinc.
The fix can be tested by manually aborting a `-reindex` e.g. on signet and observing in the debug log the order in which blockfiles are indexed / blocks are connected with this branch vs master.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK c9136ca906
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK c9136ca906. Only comments changed since last review. Appreciate the new comments, I think they make a little clearer what things code is trying to do and what things are just side-effects.
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK c9136ca906
Tree-SHA512: 6f34abc317ad7e605ccc0c2f4615e4ea6978223d207f80f768f39cc135a9ac0adf31681fadfa2aed45324a5d27a4f68c5e118ee7eec18ca5c40ef177caa9cc47
9d2d9f7ce2 rpc: Include assumeutxo as a failure reason of rescanblockchain (Fabian Jahr)
595edee169 test, assumeutxo: import descriptors during background sync (Alfonso Roman Zubeldia)
d73ae603d4 rpc: Improve importdescriptor RPC error messages (Fabian Jahr)
27f99b6d63 validation: Don't assume m_chain_tx_count in GuessVerificationProgress (Fabian Jahr)
42d5d53363 interfaces: Add helper function for wallet on pruning (Fabian Jahr)
Pull request description:
A test that is added as part of #30455 uncovered this issue: The `GuessVerificationProgress` function is used during during descriptor import and relies on `m_chain_tx_count`. In #29370 an [`Assume` was added](0fd915ee6b) expecting the `m_chaint_tx_count` to be set. However, as the test uncovered, `GuessVerificationProgress` is called with background sync blocks that have `m_chaint_tx_count = 0` when they have not been downloaded and processed yet.
The simple fix is to remove the `Assume`. Users should not be thrown off by the `Internal bug detected` error. The behavior of `importdescriptor` is kept consistent with the behavior for blocks missing due to pruning.
The test by alfonsoromanz is cherry-picked here to show that the [CI errors](https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5110045812195328?logs=ci#L2535) should be fixed by this change.
This PR also improves error messages returned by the `importdescriptors` and `rescanblockchain` RPCs. The error message now changes depending on the situation of the node, i.e. if pruning is happening or an assumutxo backgroundsync is active.
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 9d2d9f7ce2
mzumsande:
Code Review ACK 9d2d9f7ce2
furszy:
Code review ACK 9d2d9f7ce2
Tree-SHA512: b841a9b371e5eb8eb3bfebca35645ff2fdded7a3e5e06308d46a33a51ca42cc4c258028c9958fbbb6cda9bb990e07ab8d8504dd9ec6705ef78afe0435912b365
bc43ecaf6d test: add functional test for balance after snapshot completion (Martin Zumsande)
226d03dd61 validation: Send correct notification during snapshot completion (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
After AssumeUtxo background sync is completed in a `ActivateBestChain()` call, the `GetRole()` function called with `BlockConnected()` returns `ChainstateRole::NORMAL` instead of `ChainstateRole::BACKGROUND` for this chainstate.
This would make the wallet (which ignores `BlockConnected` notifications for the background chainstate) process it, change `m_last_block_processed_height` to the (ancient) snapshot height, and display an incorrect balance.
Fix this by caching the chainstate role before calling `ActivateBestChainStep()`.
Also contains a test for this situation that fails on master.
Fixes#31546
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
re-ACK bc43ecaf6d
achow101:
ACK bc43ecaf6d
furszy:
Code review ACK bc43ecaf6d
TheCharlatan:
lgtm ACK bc43ecaf6d
Tree-SHA512: c5db677cf3fbab3a33ec127ec6c27c8812299e8368fd3c986bc34d0e515c4eb256f6104479f27829eefc098197de3af75d64ddca636b6b612900a0e21243e4f2
5709718b83 coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes (Lőrinc)
Pull request description:
Split out of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30611#issuecomment-2549027130
Setting a large `-dbcache` size postpones the index writes until the coins cache size exceeds the specified limit. This causes the final flush after manual termination to seemingly hang forever (e.g. tens of minutes for 20 GiB); Now that the `dbcache` upper cap has been lifted, this will become even more apparent, so a warning will be shown when large UTXO sets are flushed (currently >1 GiB), such as:
> 2024-12-18T18:25:03Z Flushed fee estimates to fee_estimates.dat.
> 2024-12-18T18:25:03Z [warning] Flushing large (1 GiB) UTXO set to disk, it may take several minutes
> 2024-12-18T18:25:09Z Shutdown: done
---
You can reproduce it by starting `bitcoind` with a large `-dbcache`:
> mkdir demo && cmake -B build -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release && cmake --build build -j$(nproc) && build/src/bitcoind -datadir=demo **-dbcache=10000**
Waiting until the used memory is over 1 GiB
> 2024-12-18T18:25:02Z UpdateTip: [...] progress=0.069009 cache=**1181.1MiB**(8827981txo)
And cancelling the process from the terminal:
> ^C2024-12-18T18:25:03Z tor: Thread interrupt
> [...]
> 2024-12-18T18:25:03Z **[warning] Flushing large (1 GiB) UTXO set to disk, it may take several minutes*
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
utACK 5709718b83
tdb3:
re ACK 5709718b83
1440000bytes:
ACK 5709718b83
danielabrozzoni:
tACK 5709718b83
Tree-SHA512: 608cf797de788501ccb2986508c155f5660c5f6f7a414524bfcc2820cfa9ebe3da558d13f2317d1f121a82d49ffe1e711a1152c743c22dab9f9807363f4ed8d5
If AssumeUtxo background sync is completed in this
ActivateBestChain() call, the GetRole() function
returns "normal" instead of "background" for this chainstate.
This would make the wallet (which ignores BlockConnected
notifcation for the background chainstate) process it, change
m_last_block_processed_height, and display an incorrect
balance.
Setting a large `-dbcache` size postpones the index writes until the coins cache size exceeds the specified limit.
This causes the final flush after manual termination to seemingly hang forever (e.g. tens of minutes for 20 GiB);
Now that the `dbcache` upper cap has been lifted, this will become even more apparent, so a warning will be shown when large UTXO sets are flushed (currently >1 GiB), such as:
> 2024-12-18T18:25:03Z Flushed fee estimates to fee_estimates.dat.
> 2024-12-18T18:25:03Z [warning] Flushing large (1 GiB) UTXO set to disk, it may take several minutes
> 2024-12-18T18:25:09Z Shutdown: done
Note that the related BCLog::BENCH units were also converted to `KiB` from `kB` to unify the bases.
Co-authored-by: Cory Fields <cory-nospam-@coryfields.com>
If a reindex was interrupted while it was iterating
through the block files, genesis will already be connected
when the reindex resumes at the next startup.
In this case, a call to ActivateBestChainState() is not only unnecessary,
but it would connect multiple blocks without applying
-assumevalid, which is much slower.
This is because assumevalid requires us to have a header above
the minimum chainwork, but that header is unknown to us if it's in
a later blockfile not indexed yet.
This simplifies the code. The only reason to call ActivateBestChain()
here is to allow the main init thread to finish startup in a case of
-reindex. In this situation no second chainstate can exist anyway
because -reindex would have deleted any snapshot chainstate earlier.
This could change behavior slightly if -loadblocks was used when there is a
snapshot chainstate. In this case, there is no reason to call
ActivateBestChain() for that chainstate here - it will be called in
ImportBlocks() after all blocks have been indexed.
This makes code more consistent and makes it easier to add compile-time checking to
enforce that format strings contain the right specifiers, because it stops
using Untranslated() to create the format string, so the Untranslated()
function will not need to get involved in formatting.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
quote='"[^"]+"'
quotes="(?:$quote|\\s)*"
nonparens="[^()]*"
single_level_paren="\($nonparens\)"
double_level_paren="\($nonparens\($nonparens\)$nonparens\)"
exprs="(?:$double_level_paren|$single_level_paren|$nonparens)*"
git grep -l 'Untranslated' | xargs perl -0777 -i -pe "s/strprintf\((\\W*)Untranslated\(($quotes)\)($exprs)(\))/Untranslated(\1strprintf(\2\3))/gs"
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
This change manually removes two strprintf(Untranslated...) calls. All
remaining calls are removed in the next scripted-diff commit.
Removing these calls makes code more consistent and makes it easier to
implement compile-time checking enforcing that format strings contain valid
specifiers, by avoiding the need for the Untranslated() function to be involved
in formatting.
Additionally, using + and += instead of strprintf here makes code a little
shorter, and more type-safe because + unlike strprintf only works on strings of
the same type, making it less likely english strings and bilingual strings will
be unintentionally combined.
This could produce an english error message containing non-english string
fragments if PopulateAndValidateSnapshot started returning any translated
strings in the future. This change is also needed to make the next
scripted-diff commit work.
8f85d36d68 refactor: Clamp worker threads in ChainstateManager constructor (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
This ensures the options are applied consistently from contexts where they might not pass through the args manager, such as in some tests, or when used through the kernel library.
This is similar to the patch applied in 09ef322acc, used to make applying the mempool options consistent.
---
This is part of the libbitcoinkernel project https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587
ACKs for top commit:
maflcko:
ACK 8f85d36d68 🛳
achow101:
ACK 8f85d36d68
furszy:
Code ACK 8f85d36d68
stickies-v:
ACK 8f85d36d68
Tree-SHA512: 32d7cc177d6726ee9df62ac9eb43e49ba676f35bfcff47834bd97a1e33f2a9ea7be65d0a8a37be149de04e58c9c500ecef730e498f4e3909042324d3136160e9
32fc59796f rpc: Allow single transaction through submitpackage (glozow)
Pull request description:
There's no particular reason to restrict single transaction submissions with submitpackage. This change relaxes the RPC checks as enables the `AcceptPackage` flow to accept packages of a single transaction.
Resolves#31085
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 32fc59796f
achow101:
ACK 32fc59796f
glozow:
ACK 32fc59796f
Tree-SHA512: ffed353bfdca610ffcfd53b40b76da05ffc26df6bac4b0421492e067bede930380e03399d2e2d1d17f0e88fb91cd8eb376e3aabebbabcc724590bf068d09807c
73db95c65c kernel: Make bitcoin-chainstate's block validation mirror submitblock's (TheCharlatan)
bb53ce9bda tests: Add functional test for submitting a previously pruned block (Greg Sanders)
1f7fc73825 rpc: Remove submitblock duplicate pre-check (TheCharlatan)
e62a8abd7d rpc: Remove submitblock invalid-duplicate precheck (TheCharlatan)
36dbebafb9 rpc: Remove submitblock coinbase pre-check (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and (potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other interfaces do not.
The coinbase check is repeated again early during ProcessNewBlock. Pre-checking it may also shadow more fundamental problems with a block. In most cases the block header is checked first, before validating the transactions. Checking the coinbase first therefore masks potential issues with the header. Fix this by removing the pre-check.
Similary the duplicate checks are repeated early in the contextual checks of ProcessNewBlock. If duplicate blocks are detected much of their validation is skipped. Depending on the constitution of the block, validating the merkle root of the block is part of the more intensive workload when validating a block. This could be an argument for moving the pre-checks into block processing. In net_processing this would have a smaller effect however, since the block mutation check, which also validates the merkle root, is done before.
Testing spamming a node with valid, but duplicate unrequested blocks seems to exhaust a CPU thread, but does not seem to significantly impact keeping up with the tip. The benefits of adding these checks to net_processing are questionable, especially since there are other ways to trigger the more CPU-intensive checks without submitting a duplicate block. Since these DOS concerns apply even less to the RPC interface, which does not have banning mechanics built in, remove them too.
Finally, also remove the pre-checks from `bitcoin-chainstate.cpp`.
---
This PR is part of the [libbitcoinkernel project](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27587).
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
re-utACK 73db95c65c
achow101:
ACK 73db95c65c
instagibbs:
ACK 73db95c65c
mzumsande:
ACK 73db95c65c
Tree-SHA512: 2d02e851cf402ecf6a1968c058df3576aac407e200cbf922a1a6391b7f97b4f42c6d9f6b0a78b9d1af0a6d40bdd529a7b11a1e6d88885bd7b8b090f6d1411861
This makes the debug output mostly the same for -par=1 and parallel validation runs. Of course,
parallel validation is non-deterministic in what error it may encounter first if there are
multiple issues. Also, the way certain script-related and non-script-related checks are
performed differs between the two modes still, which may result in discrepancies.
The check type function now needs to return a std::optional<R> for some type R,
and the check queue overall will return std::nullopt if all individual checks
return that, or one of the non-nullopt values if there is at least one.
For most tests, we use R=int, but for the actual validation code, we make it return
the ScriptError.
And under the hood suppoert single transactions
in AcceptPackage. This simplifies user experience
and paves the way for reducing number of codepaths
for transaction acceptance in the future.
Co-Authored-By: instagibbs <gsanders87@gmail.com>
ProcessNewBlock fails if an invalid duplicate block is passed in through
its call to AcceptBlock and AcceptBlockHeader. The failure in
AcceptBlockHeader makes AcceptBlock return early. This makes the
pre-check in submitblock redundant.
---
With the introduction of a mining ipc interface and the potential future
introduction of a kernel library API it becomes increasingly important
to offer common behaviour between them. An example of this is
ProcessNewBlock, which is used by ipc, rpc, net_processing and
(potentially) the kernel library. Having divergent behaviour on
suggested pre-checks and checks for these functions is confusing to both
developers and users and is a maintenance burden.
The rpc interface for ProcessNewBlock (submitblock) currently pre-checks
if the block has a coinbase transaction and whether it has been
processed before. While the current example binary for how to use the
kernel library, bitcoin-chainstate, imitates these checks, the other
interfaces do not.
5736d1ddac tracing: pass if replaced by tx/pkg to tracepoint (0xb10c)
a4ec07f194 doc: add comments for CTxMemPool::ChangeSet (Suhas Daftuar)
83f814b1d1 Remove m_all_conflicts from SubPackageState (Suhas Daftuar)
d3c8e7dfb6 Ensure that we don't add duplicate transactions in rbf fuzz tests (Suhas Daftuar)
d7dc9fd2f7 Move CalculateChunksForRBF() to the mempool changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
284a1d33f1 Move prioritisation into changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
446b08b599 Don't distinguish between direct conflicts and all conflicts when doing cluster-size-2-rbf checks (Suhas Daftuar)
b53041021a Duplicate transactions are not permitted within a changeset (Suhas Daftuar)
b447416fdd Public mempool removal methods Assume() no changeset is outstanding (Suhas Daftuar)
2b30f4d36c Make RemoveStaged() private (Suhas Daftuar)
18829194ca Enforce that there is only one changeset at a time (Suhas Daftuar)
7fb62f7db6 Apply mempool changeset transactions directly into the mempool (Suhas Daftuar)
34b6c5833d Clean up FinalizeSubpackage to avoid workspace-specific information (Suhas Daftuar)
57983b8add Move LimitMempoolSize to take place outside FinalizeSubpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
01e145b975 Move changeset from workspace to subpackage (Suhas Daftuar)
802214c083 Introduce mempool changesets (Suhas Daftuar)
87d92fa340 test: Add unit test coverage of package rbf + prioritisetransaction (Suhas Daftuar)
15d982f91e Add package hash to package-rbf log message (Suhas Daftuar)
Pull request description:
part of cluster mempool: #30289
It became clear while working on cluster mempool that it would be helpful for transaction validation if we could consider a full set of proposed changes to the mempool -- consisting of a set of transactions to add, and a set of transactions (ie conflicts) to simultaneously remove -- and perform calculations on what the mempool would look like if the proposed changes were to be applied. Two specific examples of where we'd like to do this:
- Determining if ancestor/descendant/TRUC limits would be violated (in the future, cluster limits) if either a single transaction or a package of transactions were to be accepted
- Determining if an RBF would make the mempool "better", however that idea is defined, both in the single transaction and package of transaction cases
In preparation for cluster mempool, I have pulled this reworking of the mempool interface out of #28676 so it can be reviewed on its own. I have not re-implemented ancestor/descendant limits to be run through the changeset, since with cluster mempool those limits will be going away, so this seems like wasted effort. However, I have rebased #28676 on top of this branch so reviewers can see what the new mempool interface could look like in the cluster mempool setting.
There are some minor behavior changes here, which I believe are inconsequential:
- In the package validation setting, transactions would be added to the mempool before the `ConsensusScriptChecks()` are run. In theory, `ConsensusScriptChecks()` should always pass if the `PolicyScriptChecks()` have passed and it's just a belt-and-suspenders for us, but if somehow they were to diverge then there could be some small behavior change from adding transactions and then removing them, versus never adding them at all.
- The error reporting on `CheckConflictTopology()` has slightly changed due to no longer distinguishing between direct conflicts and indirect conflicts. I believe this should be entirely inconsequential because there shouldn't be a logical difference between those two ideas from the perspective of this function, but I did have to update some error strings in some tests.
- Because, in a package setting, RBFs now happen as part of the entire package being accepted, the logging has changed slightly because we do not know which transaction specifically evicted a given removed transaction.
- Specifically, the "package hash" is now used to reference the set of transactions that are being accepted, rather than any single txid. The log message relating to package RBF that happen in the `TXPACKAGES` category has been updated as well to include the package hash, so that it's possible to see which specific set of transactions are being referenced by that package hash.
- Relatedly, the tracepoint logging in the package rbf case has been updated as well to reference the package hash, rather than a transaction hash.
ACKs for top commit:
naumenkogs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
instagibbs:
ACK 5736d1ddac
ismaelsadeeq:
reACK 5736d1ddac
glozow:
ACK 5736d1ddac
Tree-SHA512: 21810872e082920d337c89ac406085aa71c5f8e5151ab07aedf41e6601f60a909b22fbf462ef3b735d5d5881e9b76142c53957158e674dd5dfe6f6aabbdf630b
This ensures the options are applied consistently from contexts where
they might not pass through the args manager, such as in some tests, or
when used through the kernel library.
This is similar to the patch applied in 09ef322acc.
0bd53d913c test: add test for getchaintips behavior with invalid chains (Martin Zumsande)
ccd98ea4c8 test: cleanup rpc_getchaintips.py (Martin Zumsande)
f5149ddb9b validation: mark blocks building on an invalid block as BLOCK_FAILED_CHILD (Martin Zumsande)
783cb7337f validation: call RecalculateBestHeader in InvalidChainFound (Martin Zumsande)
9275e9689a rpc: call RecalculateBestHeader as part of reconsiderblock (Martin Zumsande)
a51e91783a validation: add RecalculateBestHeader() function (Martin Zumsande)
Pull request description:
`m_best_header` (the most-work header not known to be on an invalid chain) can be wrong in the context of invalidation / reconsideration of blocks. This can happen naturally (a valid header is received and stored in our block tree db; when the full block arrives, it is found to be invalid) or triggered by the user with the `invalidateblock` / `reconsiderblock` rpc.
We don't currently use `m_best_header` for any critical things (see OP of #16974 for a list that still seems up-to-date), so it being wrong affects mostly rpcs.
This PR proposes to recalculate it if necessary by looping over the block index and finding the best header. It also suggest to mark headers between an invalidatetd block and the previous `m_best_header` as invalid, so they won't be considered in the recalculation.
It adds tests to `rpc_invalidateblock.py` and `rpc_getchaintips.py` that fail on master.
One alternative to this suggested in the past would be to introduce a continuous tracking of header tips (#12138).
While this might be more performant, it is also more complicated, and situations where we need this data are only be remotely triggerable by paying the cost of creating a valid PoW header for an invalid block.
Therefore I think it isn't necessary to optimise for performance here, plus the solution in this PR doesn't perform any extra steps in the normal node operation where no invalidated blocks are encountered.
Fixes #26245
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
reACK 0bd53d913c
achow101:
ACK 0bd53d913c
TheCharlatan:
Re-ACK 0bd53d913c
Tree-SHA512: 23c2fc42d7c7bb4f9b4ba4949646b3d0031dd29ed15484e436afd66cd821ed48e0f16a1d02f45477b5d0d73a006f6e81a56b82d9721e0dee2e924219f528b445
e80e4c6ff9 validation: Remove RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE validation result (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
The *_RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE variants in the validation result enumerations were always unused. They seem to have been kept around speculatively for a soft fork after segwit, however they were never used for taproot either. This points at them not having a clear purpose. Based on the original pull requests' comments their usage was never entirely clear:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11639#issuecomment-370234133https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15141#discussion_r271039747
Since they are part of the validation interface and need to be exposed by the kernel library keeping them around may also be confusing to future users of the library.
ACKs for top commit:
sipa:
ACK e80e4c6ff9
naumenkogs:
ACK e80e4c6ff9
dergoegge:
ACK e80e4c6ff9
ajtowns:
ACK e80e4c6ff9
Tree-SHA512: 0af17c4435bb1b5a4f43600da30545cbbe95a7d642419cabdefabfb82b9335d92262c1c48be7ca2f2a024078ae9447161228b6f951d2f508a51159a31947fb54
The mempool:replaced tracepoint now reports either a txid or a
package hash (previously it always was a txid). To let users know
if a txid or package hash is passed, a boolean argument is added
the the tracepoint.
In the functional test, a ctypes.Structure class for MempoolReplaced
is introduced as Python warns the following when not explcitly
casting it to a ctype:
Type: 'bool' not recognized. Please define the data with ctypes manually.
Rather than individually calling addUnchecked for each transaction added in a
changeset (after removing all the to-be-removed transactions), instead we can
take advantage of boost::multi_index's splicing features to extract and insert
entries directly from the staging multi_index into mapTx.
This has the immediate advantage of saving allocation overhead for mempool
entries which have already been allocated once. This also means that the memory
locations of mempool entries will not change when transactions go from staging
to the main mempool.
Additionally, eliminate addUnchecked and require all new transactions to enter
the mempool via a CTxMemPoolChangeSet.
Also known as Ephemeral Dust.
We try to ensure that dust is spent in blocks by requiring:
- ephemeral dust tx is 0-fee
- ephemeral dust tx only has one dust output
- If the ephemeral dust transaction has a child,
the dust is spent by by that child.
0-fee requirement means there is no incentive to mine
a transaction which doesn't have a child bringing its
own fees for the transaction package.
0de3e96e33 tracing: use bitcoind pid in bcc tracing examples (0xb10c)
411c6cfc6c tracing: only prepare tracepoint args if attached (0xb10c)
d524c1ec06 tracing: dedup TRACE macros & rename to TRACEPOINT (0xb10c)
Pull request description:
Currently, if the tracepoints are compiled (e.g. in depends and release builds), we always prepare the tracepoint arguments regardless of the tracepoints being used or not. We made sure that the argument preparation is as cheap as possible, but we can almost completely eliminate any overhead for users not interested in the tracepoints (the vast majority), by gating the tracepoint argument preparation with an `if(something is attached to this tracepoint)`. To achieve this, we use the optional semaphore feature provided by SystemTap.
The first commit simplifies and deduplicates our tracepoint macros from 13 TRACEx macros to a single TRACEPOINT macro. This makes them easier to use and also avoids more duplicate macro definitions in the second commit.
The Linux tracing tools I'm aware of (bcc, bpftrace, libbpf, and systemtap) all support the semaphore gating feature. Thus, all existing tracepoints and their argument preparation is gated in the second commit. For details, please refer to the commit messages and the updated documentation in `doc/tracing.md`.
Also adding unit tests that include all tracepoint macros to make sure there are no compiler problems with them (e.g. some varadiac extension not supported).
Reviewers might want to check:
- Do the tracepoints still work for you? Do the examples in `contrib/tracing/` run on your system (as bpftrace frequently breaks on every new version, please test master too if it should't work for you)? Do the CI interface tests still pass?
- Is the new documentation clear?
- The `TRACEPOINT_SEMAPHORE(event, context)` macros places global variables in our global namespace. Is this something we strictly want to avoid or maybe move to all `TRACEPOINT_SEMAPHORE`s to a separate .cpp file or even namespace? I like having the `TRACEPOINT_SEMAPHORE()` in same file as the `TRACEPOINT()`, but open for suggestion on alternative approaches.
- Are newly added tracepoints in the unit tests visible when using `readelf -n build/src/test/test_bitcoin`? You can run the new unit tests with `./build/src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=util_trace_tests* --log_level=all`.
<details><summary>Two of the added unit tests demonstrate that we are only processing the tracepoint arguments when attached by having a test-failure condition in the tracepoint argument preparation. The following bpftrace script can be used to demonstrate that the tests do indeed fail when attached to the tracepoints.</summary>
`fail_tests.bt`:
```c
#!/usr/bin/env bpftrace
usdt:./build/src/test/test_bitcoin:test:check_if_attached {
printf("the 'check_if_attached' test should have failed\n");
}
usdt:./build/src/test/test_bitcoin:test:expensive_section {
printf("the 'expensive_section' test should have failed\n");
}
```
Run the unit tests with `./build/src/test/test_bitcoin` and start `bpftrace fail_tests.bt -p $(pidof test_bitcoin)` in a separate terminal. The unit tests should fail with:
```
Running 594 test cases...
test/util_trace_tests.cpp(31): error: in "util_trace_tests/test_tracepoint_check_if_attached": check false has failed
test/util_trace_tests.cpp(51): error: in "util_trace_tests/test_tracepoint_manual_tracepoint_active_check": check false has failed
*** 2 failures are detected in the test module "Bitcoin Core Test Suite"
```
</details>
These links might provide more contextual information for reviewers:
- [How SystemTap Userspace Probes Work by eklitzke](https://eklitzke.org/how-sytemtap-userspace-probes-work) (actually an example on Bitcoin Core; mentions that with semaphores "the overhead for an untraced process is effectively zero.")
- [libbpf comment on USDT semaphore handling](1596a09b5d/src/usdt.c (L83-L92)) (can recommend the whole comment for background on how the tracepoints and tracing tools work together)
- https://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/UserSpaceProbeImplementation#Semaphore_Handling
ACKs for top commit:
willcl-ark:
utACK 0de3e96e33
laanwj:
re-ACK 0de3e96e33
jb55:
utACK 0de3e96e33
vasild:
ACK 0de3e96e33
Tree-SHA512: 0e5e0dc5e0353beaf5c446e4be03d447e64228b1be71ee9972fde1d6fac3fac71a9d73c6ce4fa68975f87db2b2bf6eee2009921a2a145e24d83a475d007a559b
The *_RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE variants in the validation result
enumerations were always unused. They seem to have been kept around
speculatively for a soft fork after segwit, however they were never used
for taproot either. This points at them not having a clear purpose.
Based on the original pull requests' comments their usage was never
entirely clear:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11639#issuecomment-370234133https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15141#discussion_r271039747
Since they are part of the validation interface and need to exposed by
the kernel library keeping them around may also be confusing to future
users of the library.
c189eec848 doc: release note for mempoolrullrbf removal (Greg Sanders)
d47297c6aa rpc: Mark fullrbf and bip125-replaceable as deprecated (Greg Sanders)
04a5dcee8a docs: remove requirement to signal bip125 (Greg Sanders)
111a23d9b3 Remove -mempoolfullrbf option (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Given https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30493 and the related discussion on network uptake it's probably not helpful to have an option for a feature that will not be respected by the network in any meaningful way.
Wallet changes can be done in another PR on its own cadence to account for possible fingerprinting, waiting for fullrbf logic to permeate the network, etc.
ACKs for top commit:
stickies-v:
re-ACK c189eec848
achow101:
ACK c189eec848
murchandamus:
ACK c189eec848
rkrux:
reACK c189eec848
Tree-SHA512: 9447f88f8f291c56c5bde70af0a91b0a4f5163aaaf173370fbfdaa3c3fd0b44120b14d3a1977f7ee10e27ffe9453f8a70dd38aad0ffb8c39cf145049d2550730
3a4a788ee0 init: Correct coins db cache size setting (TheCharlatan)
Pull request description:
The chainstate caches are currently re-balanced on startup even in the non-assumeutxo case, leading to the database being needlessly re-opened and its cache re-allocated.
Similar to `InitCoinsCache` and `m_coinstip_cache_size_bytes`, the `m_coinsdb_cache_size_bytes` should be set in `InitCoinsDB`.
Together with only conservatively setting the cache values when a assumeutxo chainstate is present, this allows for skipping the cache re-balance during initialization in the normal non-assumeutxo case.
Before:
```
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Checking all blk files are present...
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Initializing chainstate Chainstate [ibd] @ height -1 (null)
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Opening LevelDB in /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Opened LevelDB successfully
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Using obfuscation key for /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate: b0a6f4e95fd05c92
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Loaded best chain: hashBestChain=0000000e119967d4937dad58456885ae43fb1761db686947e2f8e168c9a39a4f height=216852 date=2024-10-09T21:06:16Z progress=0.999989
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Opening LevelDB in /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Opened LevelDB successfully
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z Using obfuscation key for /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate: b0a6f4e95fd05c92
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z [Chainstate [ibd] @ height 216852 (0000000e119967d4937dad58456885ae43fb1761db686947e2f8e168c9a39a4f)] resized coinsdb cache to 8.0 MiB
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z [Chainstate [ibd] @ height 216852 (0000000e119967d4937dad58456885ae43fb1761db686947e2f8e168c9a39a4f)] resized coinstip cache to 440.0 MiB
2024-10-09T21:22:17Z init message: Verifying blocks…
```
After:
```
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Checking all blk files are present...
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Initializing chainstate Chainstate [ibd] @ height -1 (null)
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Opening LevelDB in /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Opened LevelDB successfully
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Using obfuscation key for /home/drgrid/.bitcoin/signet/chainstate: b0a6f4e95fd05c92
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z Loaded best chain: hashBestChain=0000012c12b48011a7d9150ce96ed6a44bbf32b09eeecaff4a667789dda2a566 height=216850 date=2024-10-09T20:37:05Z progress=0.999971
2024-10-09T21:21:37Z init message: Verifying blocks…
```
The change may also be verified by looking at the `feature_assumeutxo.py` functional test debug logs.
ACKs for top commit:
fjahr:
utACK 3a4a788ee0
achow101:
ACK 3a4a788ee0
laanwj:
Code review ACK 3a4a788ee0
BrandonOdiwuor:
Code Review ACK 3a4a788ee0
Tree-SHA512: 87878d0d196bb426370d4b4bd180ca52a34017a0799ecea651c2532461fd2927b0f7cc8182276a7d9bb1fe0ede7d0ad677e3714ca22f321917d711c643acc578
