use head (not header_head) when rewinding full blocks #3017
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Closed
antiochp
changed the title
garyyu
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2019
|
Nice new test cases design 👍 and thanks for the fixing. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #3016
This was nasty.
We fixed the rewind behavior in #3005 to rewind based on the
header_headwhen rewinding the header MMR.But this has now exposed a lingering issue when processing full blocks. We now need to rewind the txhashset MMRs (output, rangeproof, kernel) based on the chain
headitself, not the head of the header MMR.99% of the time these are consistent and this issue does not surface.
But if
headandheader_headdiverge due to processing "header first" on a previous block we need to then be very careful with -head_headto rewind the header MMR (as in Fix invalid root #3005)headto rewind the txhashet MMRs (resolved in this PR)Reworked the test coverage from #3005 and added additional test scenarios to exercise the problem seen in #3016.