Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

OrderedTxPool inconsistency #1952

Open
kushti opened this issue Feb 14, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #1958
Open

OrderedTxPool inconsistency #1952

kushti opened this issue Feb 14, 2023 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #1958
Assignees
@jellymlg
Labels
B-500 SigUSD

Comments

@kushti
Copy link
Member

kushti commented Feb 14, 2023

Sometimes OrderedTxPool is inconsistent, a transaction (wrapped in WeightedTxId and UnconfirmedTransaction) is sitting in orderedTransactions, but not present in transactionsRegistry.

Supposedly happens with transactions replaced by others (double-spends paying more maybe).

Find how this could happen, write a test and fix the issue.
@kushti kushti mentioned this issue Feb 14, 2023
Merged
@jellymlg
Copy link
Collaborator

@kushti
I cant reproduce the inconsistency, but noticed double spending multiple times leads to incorrect behaviour. It happens because the put and remove should be in reverse in

ergo/src/main/scala/org/ergoplatform/nodeView/mempool/ErgoMemPool.scala

Line 184 in 1b0d72e

val p = pool.put(unconfirmedTransaction, feeF).remove(doubleSpendingTxs)

Is it acceptable if I just eliminate transactionsRegistry altogether?

@kushti
Copy link
Member Author

kushti commented Feb 21, 2023

@jellymlg good catch, the order is seemingly wrong, yes.

Wdym by eliminating transactionsRegistry ?

@jellymlg
Copy link
Collaborator

jellymlg commented Feb 21, 2023 •
edited
Loading

@kushti https://github.com/jellymlg/ergo/blob/oTxPool-rework/src/main/scala/org/ergoplatform/nodeView/mempool/OrderedTxPool.scala
Also this does not degrade performance in ErgoMemPoolBenchmark

@jellymlg jellymlg linked a pull request Feb 25, 2023 that will close this issue
Open
@jellymlg jellymlg self-assigned this Apr 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@jellymlg jellymlg

Labels
B-500 SigUSD
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

OrderedTxPool rework jellymlg/ergo
2 participants
@kushti @jellymlg