This does not cause any issues, because CScript in the tests are const.
However, this change allows to enable the
"function-call-in-default-argument (B008)" lint rule.
A common issue that our fuzzers keep finding is that outpoints don't
exist in the non witness utxos. Instead of trying to track this down and
checking in various individual places, do the check early during
deserialization.
e.g. sh(addr(ADDR)) or sh(raw(HEX)) are invalid descriptors.
Making sh and wsh top level functions to return addr/raw descriptors when
the subscript inference fails.
The descriptor inference logic would previously always use a dummy
signing provider and would never analyze the witness script of a P2WSH
scriptPubKey.
Note even a valid Miniscript might not always be decodable from Script
without more contextual information (for instance the key preimage for a
pk_h).
b2aa9e8528 Add release note for MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE relaxation (Greg Sanders)
8c5b3646b5 Relax MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE to 65 non-witness bytes (Greg Sanders)
Pull request description:
Since the original fix was set to be a "reasonable" transaction to reduce allocations and the true motivation later revealed, it makes sense to relax this check to something more principled.
There are more exotic transaction patterns that could take advantage of a relaxed requirement, such as 1 input, 1 output OP_RETURN to burn a utxo to fees for CPFP purposes when change isn't practical.
Two changes could be accomplished:
1) Anything not 64 bytes could be allowed
2) Anything above 64 bytes could be allowed
In the Great Consensus Cleanup, suggestion (2)
was proposed as a consensus change, and is the simpler of the two suggestions. It would not allow an "empty" OP_RETURN but would reduce the required padding from 22 bytes to 5.
The functional test is also modified to test the actual case
we care about: 64 bytes
Related mailing list discussions here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/020995.html
And a couple years earlier:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-May/017883.html
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
reACK b2aa9e8528
glozow:
reACK b2aa9e8528
pablomartin4btc:
re-ACK b2aa9e8528
jonatack:
ACK b2aa9e8528 with some suggestions
Tree-SHA512: c1ec1af9ddcf31b2272209a4f1ee0c5607399f8172e5a1dfd4604cf98bfb933810dd9369a5917ad122add003327c9fcf6ee26995de3aca41d5c42dba527991ad
Since the original fix was set to be a "reasonable" transaction
to reduce allocations and the true motivation later revealed,
it makes sense to relax this check to something more principled.
There are more exotic transaction patterns that could take advantage
of a relaxed requirement, such as 1 input, 1 output OP_RETURN to burn
a utxo to fees for CPFP purposes when change isn't practical.
Two changes could be accomplished:
1) Anything not 64 bytes could be allowed
2) Anything above 64 bytes could be allowed
In the Great Consensus Cleanup, suggestion (2) was the route taken.
It would not allow an "empty" OP_RETURN
but would reduce the required padding from 22 bytes to 5.
The functional test is also modified to test the actual case
we care about: 64 bytes
- Fix getblockstats for block height 0 which previously returned an error.
- Introduce alternative utxo_*_actual statistics which exclude unspendables: Genesis block, BIP30, unspendable outputs
- Update test data
- Explicitly test Genesis block results
The previous diff touched most files in ./test/, so bump the headers to
avoid having to touch them again for a bump later.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
./contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py update ./test/
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
905d672b74 test: use script_util helpers for creating P2W{PKH,SH} scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
285a65ccfd test: use script_util helpers for creating P2SH scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
b57b633b94 test: use script_util helpers for creating P2PKH scripts (Sebastian Falbesoner)
61b6a017a9 test: wallet util: fix multisig P2SH-P2WSH script creation (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
PR #18788 (commit 08067aebfd) introduced functions to generate output scripts for various types. This PR replaces all manual CScript creations in the P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH formats with those helpers in order to increase readability and maintainability over the functional test codebase. The first commit fixes a bug in the wallet_util helper module w.r.t. to P2SH-P2WSH script creation (the result is not used in any test so far, hence it can still be seen as refactoring).
The following table shows a summary of the output script patterns tackled in this PR:
| Type | master branch | PR branch |
| ---------- | ------------- | ------------- |
| P2PKH | `CScript([OP_DUP, OP_HASH160, hash160(key), OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG])` | `key_to_p2pkh_script(key)` |
| | `CScript([OP_DUP, OP_HASH160, keyhash, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG])` | `keyhash_to_p2pkh_script(keyhash)` |
| P2SH | `CScript([OP_HASH160, hash160(script), OP_EQUAL])` | `script_to_p2sh_script(script)` |
| P2WPKH | `CScript([OP_0, hash160(key)])` | `key_to_p2wpkh_script(key)` |
| P2WSH | `CScript([OP_0, sha256(script)])` | `script_to_p2wsh_script(script)` |
Note that the `key_to_...` helpers can't be used if an invalid key size (not 33 or 65 bytes) is passed, which is the case in some rare instances where the scripts still have to be created manually.
Possible follow-up ideas:
* further simplify by identifying P2SH-wrapped scripts and using `key_to_p2sh_p2wpkh_script()` and `script_to_p2sh_p2wsh_script()` helpers
* introduce and use `key_to_p2pk_script()` helper for P2PK scripts
ACKs for top commit:
rajarshimaitra:
tACK 905d672b74
LarryRuane:
tACK 905d672b74
0xB10C:
ACK 905d672b74
MarcoFalke:
review ACK 905d672b74 🕹
Tree-SHA512: 7ccfe69699bc81168ac122b03536720013355c1b2fbb088355b616015318644c4d1cd27e20c4f56c89ad083ae609add4bc838cf6316794d0edb0ce9cf7fa0fd8
This reject reason is triggered for non-coinbase transactions with
a coinbase-like outpoint, i.e. hash=0, n=0xffffffff.
Note that the invalid tx templates are currently used in the
functional tests feature_block.py and p2p_invalid_tx.py.
Now that we require Python 3.6+, we should be using variable type
annotations directly rather than # type: comments.
Also takes care of the discarded value issue in p2p_message_capture.py.
See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19509/files#r571674446.
Support for type hints was introduced in Python 3.5. Type hints make it easier to read and review code in my opinion. Also an IDE may discover a potential bug sooner. Yet, as PEP 484 says: "It should also be emphasized that Python will remain a dynamically typed language, and the authors have no desire to ever make type hints mandatory, even by convention."
Mypy is used in lint-python.sh to do the type checking. The package is standard so there is little chance that it will be abandoned. Mypy checks that type hints in source code are correct when they are not, it fails with an error.
Useful resources:
* https://docs.python.org/3.5/library/typing.html
* https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/
9743432034 Fix bug where duplicate PSBT keys are accepted (John L. Jegutanis)
Pull request description:
As per the BIP 174 spec a PSBT key cannot be duplicated,
however the current code accepts key duplication.
The PSBT key/value entries can be duplicated when the value
is `empty()` or `IsNull()` for `CScript` or `CTxOut` respectively
and if those key/value entries are serialized before the non-empty ones.
For example, the following PSBT, included in the test vectors,
contains a duplicate field:
```
// magic
70736274ff
// global tx
//// key
0100
//// value
2a02000000000140420f000000000017a9146e91b72d5593e7d4391e2ff44e91e985c31641f08700000000
//// separator
00
// no inputs
// outputs
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT
0101
//// value (empty script)
00
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT (same as the above)
0101
//// value (an OP_RETURN script)
016a
//// separator
00
```
ACKs for top commit:
achow101:
ACK 9743432034
instagibbs:
code review ACK 9743432034
Tree-SHA512: 34f4b34c8e6561c6a6ab745cdd319f6687eac6f7cecc735c94035eeca8c5157e17a27f2ae853dbaa6634fcd5a8f4e1c6cc13d1ebd7e563459665d72bb147cc1e
As per the BIP 174 spec a PSBT key cannot be duplicated,
however the current code accepts key duplication.
The PSBT key/value entries can be duplicated when the value
is `empty()` or `IsNull()` for `CScript` or `CTxOut` respectively
and if those key/value entries are serialized before the non-empty ones.
For example, the following PSBT, included in the test vectors,
contains a duplicate field:
```
// magic
70736274ff
// global tx
//// key
0100
//// value
2a02000000000140420f000000000017a9146e91b72d5593e7d4391e2ff44e91e985c31641f08700000000
//// separator
00
// no inputs
// outputs
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT
0101
//// value (empty script)
00
//// key PSBT_OUT_WITNESSSCRIPT (same as the above)
0101
//// value (an OP_RETURN script)
016a
//// separator
00
```
c4b0c08f7c Update tx-size-small comment with relevant CVE disclosure (Gregory Sanders)
Pull request description:
Code first introduced under https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11423 with essentially no description and no discussion.
ACKs for top commit:
MarcoFalke:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
fanquake:
ACK c4b0c08f7c
Tree-SHA512: 95d5c92998b8b1e944c477dbaee265b62612b6e815099ab31d9ff580b4dff777abaf7f326a284644709f918aa1510412d62310689b1250ef6e64de7b19ca9f71
0c62e3aa73 New regression testing for CVE-2018-17144, CVE-2012-2459, and CVE-2010-5137. (lucash-dev)
38bfca6bb2 Added comments referencing multiple CVEs in tests and production code. (lucash-dev)
Pull request description:
This functional test includes two scenarios that test for regressions of vulnerabilities, but they are only briefly described. There are freely available documents explaining in detail the issues, but without explicit mentions, the developer trying to maintain the code needs an additional step of digging in commit history and PR conversations to figure it out.
Added comments to explicitly mention CVE-2018-17144 and CVE-2012-2459, for more complete documentation.
This improves developer experience by making understanding the tests easier.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 0c62e3aa73, checked the CVE numbers, thanks for adding documentation
Tree-SHA512: 3ee05351745193b8b959e4a25d50f25a693b2d24b0732ed53cf7d5882df40b5dd0f1877bd5c69cffb921d4a7acf9deb3cc1160b96dc730d9b5984151ad06b7c9
2222c96dee test: Add notes on how to generate data/wallets/high_minversion (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
I forgot to do this in #16796
ACKs for top commit:
ryanofsky:
ACK 2222c96dee
Tree-SHA512: 5f24ffa641b97eac4febad42ade7228b14fa72335c918a10880c5dec86a3ecc3075a31526f275188e07fea95b8e2c6320c64f716099f604b00e13d5366fcee37
333317ce6b test: Test that low difficulty chain fork is rejected (MarcoFalke)
fa31dc1bf4 test: Pass down correct chain name in tests (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
To prevent OOM, Bitcoin Core will reject chain forks at low difficulty by default. This is the only use-case of checkpoints, so add a test for it to make sure the feature works as expected. If it didn't work, checkpoints would have no use-case and we might as well remove them
ACKs for top commit:
Sjors:
Thanks for adding the node 1 example. Code review ACK 333317c
Tree-SHA512: 90dffa540d0904f3cffb61d2382b1a26f84fe9560b7013e4461546383add31a8757b350616a6d43217c59ef7b8b2a1b62bb3bab582c679cbb2c660a782ce7be1
CVE-2018-17144 and CVE-2012-2459 are only partially tested for regression.
- CVE-2018-17144 is not tested for the inflation bug.
- CVE-2012-2459 is only tested for the mutated block being rejected, not
for the original block being accepted afterwards.
This commit fixes that limitation.
Also added functional test for CVE-2010-5137.
