rpc: expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header)#13451
Merged
laanwj merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom Jun 14, 2018
Merged
Conversation
maflcko
reviewed
Jun 12, 2018
src/rpc/blockchain.cpp
Outdated
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This result can also be returned for pruned blocks, as it's stored in the block index
Should be a comment in the source code instead?
I believe we have a pruning test, so it would make sense to add an assert_equal(nTx, whatever) there?
maflcko
changed the title
Member
|
Similar to |
Member
Author
|
more tests, exposure and rewording as per @MarcoFalke suggestions |
Member
Author
|
If it's not too much trouble I'd also like this backported for 0.16.2 |
instagibbs
changed the title
Member
|
utACK 86edf4a Also, tagged for backport, since it is a rather trivial rpc change with tests already included. |
Contributor
|
utACK 86edf4a. |
Contributor
|
utACK 86edf4a |
1 similar comment
Member
|
utACK 86edf4a |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2018
86edf4a expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14
Merged
fanquake
pushed a commit
to fanquake/bitcoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 15, 2018
GitHub-Pull: bitcoin#13451 Rebased-From: 86edf4a
Member
|
Added to #13455 for backport. |
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2018
…proof structure d280617 [qa] Add a test for merkle proof malleation (Suhas Daftuar) ed82f17 have verifytxoutproof check the number of txns in proof structure (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ This change would at least allow `verifytxoutproof` to properly validate that the proof matches a known block, with known number of transactions any time after the full block is processed. This should neuter the attack entirely. The negative is that a header-only processed block/future syncing mode would cause this to fail until the node has imported the data required. related: #13451 `importprunedfunds` needs this check as well. Can expand it to cover this if people like the idea. Tree-SHA512: 0682ec2b622a38b29f3f635323e0a8b6fc071e8a6fd134c954579926ee7b516e642966bafa667016744ce49c16e19b24dbc8801f982a36ad0a6a4aff6d93f82b
laanwj
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2018
9fd3e00 depends: Update Qt download url (fanquake) f7401c8 Fix parameter count check for importpubkey. (Kristaps Kaupe) cbd2f70 expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) ce8aa54 Add Windows shutdown handler (Chun Kuan Lee) 18b0c69 Bugfix: Include <memory> for std::unique_ptr (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: Backports: * #12859 Bugfix: Include <memory> for std::unique_ptr * #13131 Add Windows shutdown handler * #13451 rpc: expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) * #13507 RPC: Fix parameter count check for importpubkey * #13544 depends: Update Qt download url to the 0.16 branch. Tree-SHA512: eeaec52d001d5c81e67dda3a2d3fee7a9445e569366e597b18e81d802c1b7f89e545afd53d094740c37c1714050304979398b9860144454d3a5cb5abc9e9eaca
HashUnlimited
pushed a commit
to chaincoin/chaincoin
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 11, 2019
GitHub-Pull: bitcoin#13451 Rebased-From: 86edf4a
jasonbcox
pushed a commit
to Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2019
Summary: 86edf4a expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14 Backport of Core PR13451 bitcoin/bitcoin#13451 Test Plan: make check test_runner.py test_runner.py feature_pruning ./bitcoind ./bitcoin-cli help getblock ./bitcoin-cli help getblockheader Verify changes to help text. Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: deadalnix, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D4762
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 8, 2020
86edf4a expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14
jonspock
pushed a commit
to jonspock/devault
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2020
Summary: 86edf4a2a502416ba8d6cebbce61030992f7ff6f expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14 Backport of Core PR13451 bitcoin/bitcoin#13451 Test Plan: make check test_runner.py test_runner.py feature_pruning ./bitcoind ./bitcoin-cli help getblock ./bitcoin-cli help getblockheader Verify changes to help text. Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: deadalnix, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D4762
jonspock
pushed a commit
to jonspock/devault
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2020
Summary: 86edf4a2a502416ba8d6cebbce61030992f7ff6f expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14 Backport of Core PR13451 bitcoin/bitcoin#13451 Test Plan: make check test_runner.py test_runner.py feature_pruning ./bitcoind ./bitcoin-cli help getblock ./bitcoin-cli help getblockheader Verify changes to help text. Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: deadalnix, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D4762
jonspock
pushed a commit
to devaultcrypto/devault
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 10, 2020
Summary: 86edf4a2a502416ba8d6cebbce61030992f7ff6f expose CBlockIndex::nTx in getblock(header) (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post. Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning `CBlockIndex::nTx` would allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes. `getblockheader` is arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node. We should also ensure that `verifytxoutproof` ends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR. Tree-SHA512: af4cf48e704c6088f8da06a477fda1aaa6f8770cee9b876c4465d1075966d6a95831a88817673fe5a0d6bbcdc1ffcbc1892e2be0d838c60fc6958d33eacdcc14 Backport of Core PR13451 bitcoin/bitcoin#13451 Test Plan: make check test_runner.py test_runner.py feature_pruning ./bitcoind ./bitcoin-cli help getblock ./bitcoin-cli help getblockheader Verify changes to help text. Reviewers: deadalnix, Fabien, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Reviewed By: deadalnix, jasonbcox, O1 Bitcoin ABC, #bitcoin_abc Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D4762
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2020
…xns in proof structure d280617 [qa] Add a test for merkle proof malleation (Suhas Daftuar) ed82f17 have verifytxoutproof check the number of txns in proof structure (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ This change would at least allow `verifytxoutproof` to properly validate that the proof matches a known block, with known number of transactions any time after the full block is processed. This should neuter the attack entirely. The negative is that a header-only processed block/future syncing mode would cause this to fail until the node has imported the data required. related: bitcoin#13451 `importprunedfunds` needs this check as well. Can expand it to cover this if people like the idea. Tree-SHA512: 0682ec2b622a38b29f3f635323e0a8b6fc071e8a6fd134c954579926ee7b516e642966bafa667016744ce49c16e19b24dbc8801f982a36ad0a6a4aff6d93f82b
PastaPastaPasta
pushed a commit
to PastaPastaPasta/dash
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2020
…xns in proof structure d280617 [qa] Add a test for merkle proof malleation (Suhas Daftuar) ed82f17 have verifytxoutproof check the number of txns in proof structure (Gregory Sanders) Pull request description: Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ This change would at least allow `verifytxoutproof` to properly validate that the proof matches a known block, with known number of transactions any time after the full block is processed. This should neuter the attack entirely. The negative is that a header-only processed block/future syncing mode would cause this to fail until the node has imported the data required. related: bitcoin#13451 `importprunedfunds` needs this check as well. Can expand it to cover this if people like the idea. Tree-SHA512: 0682ec2b622a38b29f3f635323e0a8b6fc071e8a6fd134c954579926ee7b516e642966bafa667016744ce49c16e19b24dbc8801f982a36ad0a6a4aff6d93f82b
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
6 participants
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.
Recent publication of a weakness in Bitcoin's merkle tree construction demonstrates many SPV applications vulnerable to an expensive to pull off yet still plausible attack: https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/
Including the coinbase in the txoutproof seems the most effective fix, however results in a significant efficiency downgrade. Transactors will not even know a priori what the size of their proof will be within a couple orders of magnitude, unless they use the mid-state of SHA2 as detailed in the blog post.
Some applications, like Elements blockchain platform that take SPV-style proofs have optional access to a bitcoind to verify these proofs of inclusion and check depth in the chain. Returning
CBlockIndex::nTxwould allow an extremely easy and compact way of checking the depth of the tree, with no additional overhead to the codebase, and works with pruned nodes.getblockheaderis arguably not the place for it, but as mentioned before, is a natural workflow for us checking depth of a block in a possibly pruned node.We should also ensure that
verifytxoutproofends up validating this depth fact as well, but left this for another PR.