complete null-signatures removal#11491
Conversation
ordian
added
A2-insubstantial 👶
dvdplm
left a comment
dvdplm
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Help a reviewer out and point me to where the type safety happens please?
| impl SignedTransaction { | ||
| /// Try to verify transaction and recover sender. | ||
| pub fn new(transaction: UnverifiedTransaction) -> Result<Self, parity_crypto::publickey::Error> { | ||
| if transaction.is_unsigned() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the aforementioned type safety is here, SignedTransaction::new will not accept unsigned transactions after #11335
| match basic_test(&create_test_block_with_data(&bad_header, &eip86_transactions, &good_uncles), engine) { | ||
| Err(Error::Transaction(ref e)) if e == &parity_crypto::publickey::Error::InvalidSignature.into() => (), | ||
| e => panic!("Block verification failed.\nExpected: Transaction Error (Invalid Signature)\nGot: {:?}", e), | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was required (as some other removed code) to account for eip86 which we no longer support
| return Ok(ContractCreateResult::Failed) | ||
| } | ||
| if let Err(e) = self.state.inc_nonce(&self.origin_info.address) { | ||
| warn!(target: "ext", "Database corruption encountered: {:?}", e); |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn should_disallow_unsigned_transactions() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should keep the test. I guess the failure is going to be at a dfiferent level now, but still.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or did you mean something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, I just think it's worth to keep the test in it's current form, as it's covering a bit more than constructor of SignedTransaction. I think it was added based on an actual previous bug, so keeping it as a way to prevent regressions should hurt.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test was added in #8802 and it doesn't make sense anymore. I removed it because it actually fails on this branch, since it creates a null-signed UnverifiedTransaction and calls verify_transaction_basic expecting it to reject it.
But this PR removes this rejection logic, since it's not needed as we don't allow SignedTransactions with null-signatures.
Now if I modify the test to convert a transaction to a SignedTransaction, then it's not different than the test linked above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The conversion happens within engine/machine, doesn't it (via verify_transaction). IMHO still worth to check the machine/engine integration with this, but not super strong on this. If you disagree - then fine, let's remove it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The conversion happens in the verification queue when we convert Unverified block to PreverifiedBlock
https://github.com/paritytech/parity-ethereum/blob/856a0755888a30d4dc52a68cb2638a8bfd5786ac/ethcore/verification/src/verification.rs#L100
Added dd4bbf3, let me know what you think.
* master: (27 commits) Faster kill_garbage (#11514) [EngineSigner]: don't sign message with only zeroes (#11524) fix compilation warnings (#11522) [ethcore cleanup]: various unrelated fixes from `#11493` (#11507) Add benchmark for transaction execution (#11509) Add Smart Contract License v1.0 Misc fixes (#11510) [dependencies]: unify `rustc-hex` (#11506) Activate on-chain randomness in POA Sokol (#11505) Grab bag of cleanup (#11504) Implement eth/64 (EIP-2364) and drop support for eth/62 (#11472) [dependencies]: remove `util/macros` (#11501) OpenEthereum bootnodes are added (#11499) [ci benches]: use `all-features` (#11496) [verification]: make test-build compile standalone (#11495) complete null-signatures removal (#11491) Include the seal when populating the header for a new block (#11475) fix compilation warnings (#11492) cargo update -p cmake (#11490) update to published rlp-derive (#11489) ...
3 participants
Closes #11339.