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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add tests to trigger witness limit error paths #1917
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add tests to trigger witness limit error paths #1917
Changes from all commits
96cd3f4
b035335
0b59cb7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thinking more about it... if these limit checks are already happening deeper in consensus logic, I wonder if it doesn't make more sense to simply forget about witness limit checks and just do a <4MB size check on the entire txn? if these checks at a parsing level are really more about memory exhaustion safeguards, there shouldn't be a need to look for the witness specifically?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That would certainly be the most conservative check. The issue with doing it on this layer though, is the possibility of future interactions that increase this value (say an ext block in the future or w/e). On the bitcoind side, they have such limits in place still, but it's around 32 MB or so (iirc the max p2p payload). So if we end up upgrading Bitcoin far in the future to 64 MB blocks or w/e, then that would cause a fork with these old clients.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't look to use many of the variables closed over, so I think we can just make this a regular function and then call it below.