fix(blocksync)!: don't block in blocksync if our voting power is blocking the chain (backport #3406) #3420
Conversation
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
…king the chain (#3406) Partially addresses #3415 The a node has no peers, blocksync gets stuck without switching to consesnus, because it needs info from other peers to have an idea of maximum height. However, there is an edge case (mainly when testing) where a validator might have >2/3 of the voting power and other validators are not started. In this case, we know we are blocking the chain, so we don't need to stay in blockchain if the only condition is that we don't have peers. Moreover, in order to block a chain, 1/3 of the voting power is enough, so the reasoning of this fix is the following: * _I am a node and I am starting... shall I run blocksync?_ * _Well, looks like I have 1/3 of the voting power (or more) at my current height... so there's no way the chain could advance in my absence... so I don't need to blocksync"_ Explanation of commits: * Commit 1: `e2e` testbed reproducing the issue * Commit 2: commit with a trivial change to trigger `e2e` tests. Check the error: ❌ next to the commit hash (3fb1057) * Commit 3: Tentative fix. Although there is a ❌ next to the commit hash (16a46ea), if you click on it, you'll see that `e2e` are passing now. * Commit 4: revert commit2 * Commit 5: Move the check for "local node is blocking the chain" outside the pool, as suggested by @cason * Commit 6: Fixed unit tests All further commits: addressing other comments and tidying up the code --- #### PR checklist - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - ~[ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments~ - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec --------- Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@informal.systems> (cherry picked from commit bd95579) # Conflicts: # internal/blocksync/reactor.go
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
…king the chain (#3406) Partially addresses #3415 The a node has no peers, blocksync gets stuck without switching to consesnus, because it needs info from other peers to have an idea of maximum height. However, there is an edge case (mainly when testing) where a validator might have >2/3 of the voting power and other validators are not started. In this case, we know we are blocking the chain, so we don't need to stay in blockchain if the only condition is that we don't have peers. Moreover, in order to block a chain, 1/3 of the voting power is enough, so the reasoning of this fix is the following: * _I am a node and I am starting... shall I run blocksync?_ * _Well, looks like I have 1/3 of the voting power (or more) at my current height... so there's no way the chain could advance in my absence... so I don't need to blocksync"_ Explanation of commits: * Commit 1: `e2e` testbed reproducing the issue * Commit 2: commit with a trivial change to trigger `e2e` tests. Check the error: ❌ next to the commit hash (3fb1057) * Commit 3: Tentative fix. Although there is a ❌ next to the commit hash (16a46ea), if you click on it, you'll see that `e2e` are passing now. * Commit 4: revert commit2 * Commit 5: Move the check for "local node is blocking the chain" outside the pool, as suggested by @cason * Commit 6: Fixed unit tests All further commits: addressing other comments and tidying up the code --- - [x] Tests written/updated - [x] Changelog entry added in `.changelog` (we use [unclog](https://github.com/informalsystems/unclog) to manage our changelog) - ~[ ] Updated relevant documentation (`docs/` or `spec/`) and code comments~ - [x] Title follows the [Conventional Commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/) spec --------- Co-authored-by: Daniel <daniel.cason@informal.systems>
melekes
approved these changes
Jul 5, 2024
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.
Partially addresses #3415
The a node has no peers, blocksync gets stuck without switching to consesnus, because it needs info from other peers to have an idea of maximum height.
However, there is an edge case (mainly when testing) where a validator might have >2/3 of the voting power and other validators are not started. In this case, we know we are blocking the chain, so we don't need to stay in blockchain if the only condition is that we don't have peers.
Moreover, in order to block a chain, 1/3 of the voting power is enough, so the reasoning of this fix is the following:
Explanation of commits:
e2etestbed reproducing the issuee2etests. Check the error: ❌ next to the commit hash (3fb1057)e2eare passing now.All further commits: addressing other comments and tidying up the code
PR checklist
.changelog(we use unclog to manage our changelog)[ ] Updated relevant documentation (docs/orspec/) and code commentsThis is an automatic backport of pull request #3406 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).