## Issue Addressed
Resolves#3980. Builds on work by @GeemoCandama in #4084
## Proposed Changes
Extends the `SupportedProtocol` abstraction added in Geemo's PR and attempts to fix internal versioning of requests that are mentioned in this comment https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/4084#issuecomment-1496380033
Co-authored-by: geemo <geemo@tutanota.com>
Done in different PRs so that they can reviewed independently, as it's likely this won't be merged before I leave
Includes resolution for #4080
- [ ] #4299
- [ ] #4318
- [ ] #4320
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Age Manning <Age@AgeManning.com>
## Issue Addressed
On deneb devnetv5, lighthouse keeps rate limiting peers which makes it harder to bootstrap new nodes as there are very few peers in the network. This PR adds an option to disable the inbound rate limiter for testnets.
Added an option to configure inbound rate limits as well.
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
#2335
## Proposed Changes
- Remove the `lighthouse-network::tests::gossipsub_tests` module
- Remove dead code from the `lighthouse-network::tests::common` helper module (`build_full_mesh`)
## Additional Info
After discussion with both @divagant-martian and @AgeManning, these tests seem to have two main issues in that they are:
- Redundant, in that they don't test anything meaningful (due to our handling of duplicate messages)
- Out-of-place, in that it doesn't really test Lighthouse-specific functionality (rather libp2p functionality)
As such, this PR supersedes #4286.
## Issue Addressed
NA
## Proposed Changes
Adds a flag to store invalid blocks on disk for teh debugz. Only *some* invalid blocks are stored, those which:
- Were received via gossip (rather than RPC, for instance)
- This keeps things simple to start with and should capture most blocks.
- Passed gossip verification
- This reduces the ability for random people to fill up our disk. A proposer signature is required to write something to disk.
## Additional Info
It's possible that we'll store blocks that aren't necessarily invalid, but we had an internal error during verification. Those blocks seem like they might be useful sometimes.
## Limit Backfill Sync
This PR transitions Lighthouse from syncing all the way back to genesis to only syncing back to the weak subjectivity point (~ 5 months) when syncing via a checkpoint sync.
There are a number of important points to note with this PR:
- Firstly and most importantly, this PR fundamentally shifts the default security guarantees of checkpoint syncing in Lighthouse. Prior to this PR, Lighthouse could verify the checkpoint of any given chain by ensuring the chain eventually terminates at the corresponding genesis. This guarantee can still be employed via the new CLI flag --genesis-backfill which will prompt lighthouse to the old behaviour of downloading all blocks back to genesis. The new behaviour only checks the proposer signatures for the last 5 months of blocks but cannot guarantee the chain matches the genesis chain.
- I have not modified any of the peer scoring or RPC responses. Clients syncing from gensis, will downscore new Lighthouse peers that do not possess blocks prior to the WSP. This is by design, as Lighthouse nodes of this form, need a mechanism to sort through peers in order to find useful peers in order to complete their genesis sync. We therefore do not discriminate between empty/error responses for blocks prior or post the local WSP. If we request a block that a peer does not posses, then fundamentally that peer is less useful to us than other peers.
- This will make a radical shift in that the majority of nodes will no longer store the full history of the chain. In the future we could add a pruning mechanism to remove old blocks from the db also.
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
## Issue Addressed
#4150
## Proposed Changes
Maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic. ~~In principle the changes here are not necessary as a trusted peer has a max score (100) and all other peers can have at most 0 (because we don't implement positive scores). This means that we should never prune trusted peers unless we have more trusted peers than the target peer count.~~
This change shifts this logic to explicitly never prune trusted peers which I expect is the intuitive behaviour.
~~I suspect the issue in #4150 arises when a trusted peer disconnects from us for one reason or another and then we remove that peer from our peerdb as it becomes stale. When it re-connects at some large time later, it is no longer a trusted peer.~~
Currently we do disconnect trusted peers, and this PR corrects this to maintain trusted peers in the pruning logic.
As suggested in #4150 we maintain trusted peers in the db and thus we remember them even if they disconnect from us.
It is a well-known fact that IP addresses for beacon nodes used by specific validators can be de-anonymized. There is an assumed risk that a malicious user may attempt to DOS validators when producing blocks to prevent chain growth/liveness.
Although there are a number of ideas put forward to address this, there a few simple approaches we can take to mitigate this risk.
Currently, a Lighthouse user is able to set a number of beacon-nodes that their validator client can connect to. If one beacon node is taken offline, it can fallback to another. Different beacon nodes can use VPNs or rotate IPs in order to mask their IPs.
This PR provides an additional setup option which further mitigates attacks of this kind.
This PR introduces a CLI flag --proposer-only to the beacon node. Setting this flag will configure the beacon node to run with minimal peers and crucially will not subscribe to subnets or sync committees. Therefore nodes of this kind should not be identified as nodes connected to validators of any kind.
It also introduces a CLI flag --proposer-nodes to the validator client. Users can then provide a number of beacon nodes (which may or may not run the --proposer-only flag) that the Validator client will use for block production and propagation only. If these nodes fail, the validator client will fallback to the default list of beacon nodes.
Users are then able to set up a number of beacon nodes dedicated to block proposals (which are unlikely to be identified as validator nodes) and point their validator clients to produce blocks on these nodes and attest on other beacon nodes. An attack attempting to prevent liveness on the eth2 network would then need to preemptively find and attack the proposer nodes which is significantly more difficult than the default setup.
This is a follow on from: #3328
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io>
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
## Issue Addressed
N/A
## Proposed Changes
Adds a flag for disabling peer scoring. This is useful for local testing and testing small networks for new features.
It is possible that when we go to ban a peer, there is already an unbanned message in the queue. It could lead to the case that we ban and immediately unban a peer leaving us in a state where a should-be banned peer is unbanned.
If this banned peer connects to us in this faulty state, we currently do not attempt to re-ban it. This PR does correct this also, so if we do see this error, it will now self-correct (although we shouldn't see the error in the first place).
I have also incremented the severity of not supporting protocols as I see peers ultimately get banned in a few steps and it seems to make sense to just ban them outright, rather than have them linger.
Currently Lighthouse will remain uncontactable if users port forward a port that is not the same as the one they are listening on.
For example, if Lighthouse runs with port 9000 TCP/UDP locally but a router is configured to pass 9010 externally to the lighthouse node on 9000, other nodes on the network will not be able to reach the lighthouse node.
This occurs because Lighthouse does not update its ENR TCP port on external socket discovery. The intention was always that users should use `--enr-tcp-port` to customise this, but this is non-intuitive.
The difficulty arises because we have no discovery mechanism to find our external TCP port. If we discovery a new external UDP port, we must guess what our external TCP port might be. This PR assumes the external TCP port is the same as the external UDP port (which may not be the case) and thus updates the TCP port along with the UDP port if the `--enr-tcp-port` flag is not set.
Along with this PR, will be added documentation to the Lighthouse book so users can correctly understand and configure their ENR to maximize Lighthouse's connectivity.
This relies on https://github.com/sigp/discv5/pull/166 and we should wait for a new release in discv5 before adding this PR.
If a node is also a bootnode it can try to add itself to its own local routing table which will emit an error.
The error is entirely harmless but we would prefer to avoid emitting the error.
This PR does not attempt to add a boot node ENR if that ENR corresponds to our local peer-id/node-id.
There is a race condition which occurs when multiple discovery queries return at almost the exact same time and they independently contain a useful peer we would like to connect to.
The condition can occur that we can add the same peer to the dial queue, before we get a chance to process the queue.
This ends up displaying an error to the user:
```
ERRO Dialing an already dialing peer
```
Although this error is harmless it's not ideal.
There are two solutions to resolving this:
1. As we decide to dial the peer, we change the state in the peer-db to dialing (before we add it to the queue) which would prevent other requests from adding to the queue.
2. We prevent duplicates in the dial queue
This PR has opted for 2. because 1. will complicate the code in that we are changing states in non-intuitive places. Although this technically adds a very slight performance cost, its probably a cleaner solution as we can keep the state-changing logic in one place.
## Issue Addressed
- Add a complete match for `Protocol` here.
- The incomplete match was causing us not to append context bytes to the light client protocols
- This is the relevant part of the spec and it looks like context bytes are defined https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/blob/dev/specs/altair/light-client/p2p-interface.md#getlightclientbootstrap
Disclaimer: I have no idea if people are using it but it shouldn't have been working so not sure why it wasn't caught
Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Add support for ipv6 and dual stack in lighthouse.
## Proposed Changes
From an user perspective, now setting an ipv6 address, optionally configuring the ports should feel exactly the same as using an ipv4 address. If listening over both ipv4 and ipv6 then the user needs to:
- use the `--listen-address` two times (ipv4 and ipv6 addresses)
- `--port6` becomes then required
- `--discovery-port6` can now be used to additionally configure the ipv6 udp port
### Rough list of code changes
- Discovery:
- Table filter and ip mode set to match the listening config.
- Ipv6 address, tcp port and udp port set in the ENR builder
- Reported addresses now check which tcp port to give to libp2p
- LH Network Service:
- Can listen over Ipv6, Ipv4, or both. This uses two sockets. Using mapped addresses is disabled from libp2p and it's the most compatible option.
- NetworkGlobals:
- No longer stores udp port since was not used at all. Instead, stores the Ipv4 and Ipv6 TCP ports.
- NetworkConfig:
- Update names to make it clear that previous udp and tcp ports in ENR were Ipv4
- Add fields to configure Ipv6 udp and tcp ports in the ENR
- Include advertised enr Ipv6 address.
- Add type to model Listening address that's either Ipv4, Ipv6 or both. A listening address includes the ip, udp port and tcp port.
- UPnP:
- Kept only for ipv4
- Cli flags:
- `--listen-addresses` now can take up to two values
- `--port` will apply to ipv4 or ipv6 if only one listening address is given. If two listening addresses are given it will apply only to Ipv4.
- `--port6` New flag required when listening over ipv4 and ipv6 that applies exclusively to Ipv6.
- `--discovery-port` will now apply to ipv4 and ipv6 if only one listening address is given.
- `--discovery-port6` New flag to configure the individual udp port of ipv6 if listening over both ipv4 and ipv6.
- `--enr-udp-port` Updated docs to specify that it only applies to ipv4. This is an old behaviour.
- `--enr-udp6-port` Added to configure the enr udp6 field.
- `--enr-tcp-port` Updated docs to specify that it only applies to ipv4. This is an old behaviour.
- `--enr-tcp6-port` Added to configure the enr tcp6 field.
- `--enr-addresses` now can take two values.
- `--enr-match` updated behaviour.
- Common:
- rename `unused_port` functions to specify that they are over ipv4.
- add functions to get unused ports over ipv6.
- Testing binaries
- Updated code to reflect network config changes and unused_port changes.
## Additional Info
TODOs:
- use two sockets in discovery. I'll get back to this and it's on https://github.com/sigp/discv5/pull/160
- lcli allow listening over two sockets in generate_bootnodes_enr
- add at least one smoke flag for ipv6 (I have tested this and works for me)
- update the book
## Proposed Changes
The current `/lighthouse/nat` implementation checks for _zero_ address updated messages, when it should check for a _non-zero_ number. This was spotted while debugging an issue on Discord where a user's ports weren't forwarded but `/lighthouse/nat` was still returning `true`.
## Issue Addressed
Cleaner resolution for #4006
## Proposed Changes
We are currently subscribing to core topics of new forks way before the actual fork since we had just a single `CORE_TOPICS` array. This PR separates the core topics for every fork and subscribes to only required topics based on the current fork.
Also adds logic for subscribing to the core topics of a new fork only 2 slots before the fork happens.
2 slots is to give enough time for the gossip meshes to form.
Currently doesn't add logic to remove topics from older forks in new forks. For e.g. in the coupled 4844 world, we had to remove the `BeaconBlock` topic in favour of `BeaconBlocksAndBlobsSidecar` at the 4844 fork. It should be easy enough to add though. Not adding it because I'm assuming that #4019 will get merged before this PR and we won't require any deletion logic. Happy to add it regardless though.
## Issue Addressed
Cleans up all the remnants of 4844 in capella. This makes sure when 4844 is reviewed there is nothing we are missing because it got included here
## Proposed Changes
drop a bomb on every 4844 thing
## Additional Info
Merge process I did (locally) is as follows:
- squash merge to produce one commit
- in new branch off unstable with the squashed commit create a `git revert HEAD` commit
- merge that new branch onto 4844 with `--strategy ours`
- compare local 4844 to remote 4844 and make sure the diff is empty
- enjoy
Co-authored-by: Paul Hauner <paul@paulhauner.com>
This is a correction to #3757.
The correction registers a peer that is being disconnected in the local peer manager db to ensure we are tracking the correct state.
On heavily crowded networks, we are seeing many attempted connections to our node every second.
Often these connections come from peers that have just been disconnected. This can be for a number of reasons including:
- We have deemed them to be not as useful as other peers
- They have performed poorly
- They have dropped the connection with us
- The connection was spontaneously lost
- They were randomly removed because we have too many peers
In all of these cases, if we have reached or exceeded our target peer limit, there is no desire to accept new connections immediately after the disconnect from these peers. In fact, it often costs us resources to handle the established connections and defeats some of the logic of dropping them in the first place.
This PR adds a timeout, that prevents recently disconnected peers from reconnecting to us.
Technically we implement a ban at the swarm layer to prevent immediate re connections for at least 10 minutes. I decided to keep this light, and use a time-based LRUCache which only gets updated during the peer manager heartbeat to prevent added stress of polling a delay map for what could be a large number of peers.
This cache is bounded in time. An extra space bound could be added should people consider this a risk.
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
## Issue Addressed
Adds self rate limiting options, mainly with the idea to comply with peer's rate limits in small testnets
## Proposed Changes
Add a hidden flag `self-limiter` this can take no value, or customs values to configure quotas per protocol
## Additional Info
### How to use
`--self-limiter` will turn on the self rate limiter applying the same params we apply to inbound requests (requests from other peers)
`--self-limiter "beacon_blocks_by_range:64/1"` will turn on the self rate limiter for ALL protocols, but change the quota for bbrange to 64 requested blocks per 1 second.
`--self-limiter "beacon_blocks_by_range:64/1;ping:1/10"` same as previous one, changing the quota for ping as well.
### Caveats
- The rate limiter is either on or off for all protocols. I added the custom values to be able to change the quotas per protocol so that some protocols can be given extremely loose or tight quotas. I think this should satisfy every need even if we can't technically turn off rate limits per protocol.
- This reuses the rate limiter struct for the inbound requests so there is this ugly part of the code in which we need to deal with the inbound only protocols (light client stuff) if this becomes too ugly as we add lc protocols, we might want to split the rate limiters. I've checked this and looks doable with const generics to avoid so much code duplication
### Knowing if this is on
```
Feb 06 21:12:05.493 DEBG Using self rate limiting params config: OutboundRateLimiterConfig { ping: 2/10s, metadata: 1/15s, status: 5/15s, goodbye: 1/10s, blocks_by_range: 1024/10s, blocks_by_root: 128/10s }, service: libp2p_rpc, service: libp2p
```
I've needed to do this work in order to do some episub testing.
This version of libp2p has not yet been released, so this is left as a draft for when we wish to update.
Co-authored-by: Diva M <divma@protonmail.com>
Our custom RPC implementation is lagging from the libp2p v50 version.
We are going to need to change a bunch of function names and would be nice to have consistent ordering of function names inside the handlers.
This is a precursor to the libp2p upgrade to minimize merge conflicts in function ordering.
## Issue Addressed
Implementing the light_client_gossip topics but I'm not there yet.
Which issue # does this PR address?
Partially #3651
## Proposed Changes
Add light client gossip topics.
Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.
I'm going to Implement light_client_finality_update and light_client_optimistic_update gossip topics. Currently I've attempted the former and I'm seeking feedback.
## Additional Info
I've only implemented the light_client_finality_update topic because I wanted to make sure I was on the correct path. Also checking that the gossiped LightClientFinalityUpdate is the same as the locally constructed one is not implemented because caching the updates will make this much easier. Could someone give me some feedback on this please?
Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.
Co-authored-by: GeemoCandama <104614073+GeemoCandama@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue Addressed
#3704
## Proposed Changes
Adds is_syncing_finalized: bool parameter for block verification functions. Sets the payload_verification_status to Optimistic if is_syncing_finalized is true. Uses SyncState in NetworkGlobals in BeaconProcessor to retrieve the syncing status.
## Additional Info
I could implement FinalizedSignatureVerifiedBlock if you think it would be nicer.
## Issue Addressed
Partially addresses #3651
## Proposed Changes
Adds server-side support for light_client_bootstrap_v1 topic
## Additional Info
This PR, creates each time a bootstrap without using cache, I do not know how necessary a cache is in this case as this topic is not supposed to be called frequently and IMHO we can just prevent abuse by using the limiter, but let me know what you think or if there is any caveat to this, or if it is necessary only for the sake of good practice.
Co-authored-by: Pawan Dhananjay <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
## Proposed Changes
With a few different changes to the gossip topics in flight (light clients, Capella, 4844, etc) I think this simplification makes sense. I noticed it while plumbing through a new Capella topic.
