Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Mac L
3c029d48bf DB migration for fork choice cleanup (#4265)
## Issue Addressed

#4233

## Proposed Changes

Remove the `best_justified_checkpoint` from the `PersistedForkChoiceStore` type as it is now unused.
Additionally, remove the `Option`'s wrapping the `justified_checkpoint` and `finalized_checkpoint` fields on `ProtoNode` which were only present to facilitate a previous migration.

Include the necessary code to facilitate the migration to a new DB schema.
2023-05-15 02:10:42 +00:00
Paul Hauner
1f8c17b530 Fork choice modifications and cleanup (#3962)
## Issue Addressed

NA

## Proposed Changes

- Implements https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3290/
- Bumps `ef-tests` to [v1.3.0-rc.4](https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-spec-tests/releases/tag/v1.3.0-rc.4).

The `CountRealizedFull` concept has been removed and the `--count-unrealized-full` and `--count-unrealized` BN flags now do nothing but log a `WARN` when used.

## Database Migration Debt

This PR removes the `best_justified_checkpoint` from fork choice. This field is persisted on-disk and the correct way to go about this would be to make a DB migration to remove the field. However, in this PR I've simply stubbed out the value with a junk value. I've taken this approach because if we're going to do a DB migration I'd love to remove the `Option`s around the justified and finalized checkpoints on `ProtoNode` whilst we're at it. Those options were added in #2822 which was included in Lighthouse v2.1.0. The options were only put there to handle the migration and they've been set to `Some` ever since v2.1.0. There's no reason to keep them as options anymore.

I started adding the DB migration to this branch but I started to feel like I was bloating this rather critical PR with nice-to-haves. I've kept the partially-complete migration [over in my repo](https://github.com/paulhauner/lighthouse/tree/fc-pr-18-migration) so we can pick it up after this PR is merged.
2023-03-21 07:34:41 +00:00
Michael Sproul
775d222299 Enable proposer boost re-orging (#2860)
## Proposed Changes

With proposer boosting implemented (#2822) we have an opportunity to re-org out late blocks.

This PR adds three flags to the BN to control this behaviour:

* `--disable-proposer-reorgs`: turn aggressive re-orging off (it's on by default).
* `--proposer-reorg-threshold N`: attempt to orphan blocks with less than N% of the committee vote. If this parameter isn't set then N defaults to 20% when the feature is enabled.
* `--proposer-reorg-epochs-since-finalization N`: only attempt to re-org late blocks when the number of epochs since finalization is less than or equal to N. The default is 2 epochs, meaning re-orgs will only be attempted when the chain is finalizing optimally.

For safety Lighthouse will only attempt a re-org under very specific conditions:

1. The block being proposed is 1 slot after the canonical head, and the canonical head is 1 slot after its parent. i.e. at slot `n + 1` rather than building on the block from slot `n` we build on the block from slot `n - 1`.
2. The current canonical head received less than N% of the committee vote. N should be set depending on the proposer boost fraction itself, the fraction of the network that is believed to be applying it, and the size of the largest entity that could be hoarding votes.
3. The current canonical head arrived after the attestation deadline from our perspective. This condition was only added to support suppression of forkchoiceUpdated messages, but makes intuitive sense.
4. The block is being proposed in the first 2 seconds of the slot. This gives it time to propagate and receive the proposer boost.


## Additional Info

For the initial idea and background, see: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2353#issuecomment-950238004

There is also a specification for this feature here: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/3034

Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <micsproul@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pawan <pawandhananjay@gmail.com>
2022-12-13 09:57:26 +00:00
realbigsean
cae40731a2 Strict count unrealized (#3522)
## Issue Addressed

Add a flag that can increase count unrealized strictness, defaults to false

## Proposed Changes

Please list or describe the changes introduced by this PR.

## Additional Info

Please provide any additional information. For example, future considerations
or information useful for reviewers.


Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: sean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
2022-09-05 04:50:47 +00:00
realbigsean
b22ac95d7f v1.1.6 Fork Choice changes (#2822)
## Issue Addressed

Resolves: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/issues/2741
Includes: https://github.com/sigp/lighthouse/pull/2853 so that we can get ssz static tests passing here on v1.1.6. If we want to merge that first, we can make this diff slightly smaller

## Proposed Changes

- Changes the `justified_epoch` and `finalized_epoch` in the `ProtoArrayNode` each to an `Option<Checkpoint>`. The `Option` is necessary only for the migration, so not ideal. But does allow us to add a default logic to `None` on these fields during the database migration.
- Adds a database migration from a legacy fork choice struct to the new one, search for all necessary block roots in fork choice by iterating through blocks in the db.
- updates related to https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727
  -  We will have to update the persisted forkchoice to make sure the justified checkpoint stored is correct according to the updated fork choice logic. This boils down to setting the forkchoice store's justified checkpoint to the justified checkpoint of the block that advanced the finalized checkpoint to the current one. 
  - AFAICT there's no migration steps necessary for the update to allow applying attestations from prior blocks, but would appreciate confirmation on that
- I updated the consensus spec tests to v1.1.6 here, but they will fail until we also implement the proposer score boost updates. I confirmed that the previously failing scenario `new_finalized_slot_is_justified_checkpoint_ancestor` will now pass after the boost updates, but haven't confirmed _all_ tests will pass because I just quickly stubbed out the proposer boost test scenario formatting.
- This PR now also includes proposer boosting https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2730

## Additional Info
I realized checking justified and finalized roots in fork choice makes it more likely that we trigger this bug: https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727

It's possible the combination of justified checkpoint and finalized checkpoint in the forkchoice store is different from in any block in fork choice. So when trying to startup our store's justified checkpoint seems invalid to the rest of fork choice (but it should be valid). When this happens we get an `InvalidBestNode` error and fail to start up. So I'm including that bugfix in this branch.

Todo:

- [x] Fix fork choice tests
- [x] Self review
- [x] Add fix for https://github.com/ethereum/consensus-specs/pull/2727
- [x] Rebase onto Kintusgi 
- [x] Fix `num_active_validators` calculation as @michaelsproul pointed out
- [x] Clean up db migrations

Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
2021-12-13 20:43:22 +00:00
Paul Hauner
1b56ebf85e
Kintsugi review comments (#2831)
* Fix makefile

* Return on invalid finalized block

* Fix todo in gossip scoring

* Require --merge for --fee-recipient

* Bump eth2_serde_utils

* Change schema versions

* Swap hash/uint256 test_random impls

* Use default for ExecutionPayload::empty

* Check for DBs before removing

* Remove kintsugi docker image

* Fix CLI default value
2021-12-02 14:29:59 +11:00
realbigsean
aa534f8989
Store execution block hash in fork choice (#2643)
* - Update the fork choice `ProtoNode` to include `is_merge_complete`
- Add database migration for the persisted fork choice

* update tests

* Small cleanup

* lints

* store execution block hash in fork choice rather than bool
2021-12-02 14:26:51 +11:00
realbigsean
7a71977987 Clippy 1.49.0 updates and dht persistence test fix (#2156)
## Issue Addressed

`test_dht_persistence` failing

## Proposed Changes

Bind `NetworkService::start` to an underscore prefixed variable rather than `_`.  `_` was causing it to be dropped immediately

This was failing 5/100 times before this update, but I haven't been able to get it to fail after updating it

Co-authored-by: realbigsean <seananderson33@gmail.com>
2021-01-19 00:34:28 +00:00
blacktemplar
23a8f31f83 Fix clippy warnings (#1385)
## Issue Addressed

NA

## Proposed Changes

Fixes most clippy warnings and ignores the rest of them, see issue #1388.
2020-07-23 14:18:00 +00:00
Paul Hauner
764cb2d32a
v0.12 fork choice update (#1229)
* Incomplete scraps

* Add progress on new fork choice impl

* Further progress

* First complete compiling version

* Remove chain reference

* Add new lmd_ghost crate

* Start integrating into beacon chain

* Update `milagro_bls` to new release (#1183)

* Update milagro_bls to new release

Signed-off-by: Kirk Baird <baird.k@outlook.com>

* Tidy up fake cryptos

Signed-off-by: Kirk Baird <baird.k@outlook.com>

* move SecretHash to bls and put plaintext back

Signed-off-by: Kirk Baird <baird.k@outlook.com>

* Update state processing for v0.12

* Fix EF test runners for v0.12

* Fix some tests

* Fix broken attestation verification test

* More test fixes

* Rough beacon chain impl working

* Remove fork_choice_2

* Remove checkpoint manager

* Half finished ssz impl

* Add missed file

* Add persistence

* Tidy, fix some compile errors

* Remove RwLock from ProtoArrayForkChoice

* Fix store-based compile errors

* Add comments, tidy

* Move function out of ForkChoice struct

* Start testing

* More testing

* Fix compile error

* Tidy beacon_chain::fork_choice

* Queue attestations from the current slot

* Allow fork choice to handle prior-to-genesis start

* Improve error granularity

* Test attestation dequeuing

* Process attestations during block

* Store target root in fork choice

* Move fork choice verification into new crate

* Update tests

* Consensus updates for v0.12 (#1228)

* Update state processing for v0.12

* Fix EF test runners for v0.12

* Fix some tests

* Fix broken attestation verification test

* More test fixes

* Fix typo found in review

* Add `Block` struct to ProtoArray

* Start fixing get_ancestor

* Add rough progress on testing

* Get fork choice tests working

* Progress with testing

* Fix partialeq impl

* Move slot clock from fc_store

* Improve testing

* Add testing for best justified

* Add clone back to SystemTimeSlotClock

* Add balances test

* Start adding balances cache again

* Wire-in balances cache

* Improve tests

* Remove commented-out tests

* Remove beacon_chain::ForkChoice

* Rename crates

* Update wider codebase to new fork_choice layout

* Move advance_slot in test harness

* Tidy ForkChoice::update_time

* Fix verification tests

* Fix compile error with iter::once

* Fix fork choice tests

* Ensure block attestations are processed

* Fix failing beacon_chain tests

* Add first invalid block check

* Add finalized block check

* Progress with testing, new store builder

* Add fixes to get_ancestor

* Fix old genesis justification test

* Fix remaining fork choice tests

* Change root iteration method

* Move on_verified_block

* Remove unused method

* Start adding attestation verification tests

* Add invalid ffg target test

* Add target epoch test

* Add queued attestation test

* Remove old fork choice verification tests

* Tidy, add test

* Move fork choice lock drop

* Rename BeaconForkChoiceStore

* Add comments, tidy BeaconForkChoiceStore

* Update metrics, rename fork_choice_store.rs

* Remove genesis_block_root from ForkChoice

* Tidy

* Update fork_choice comments

* Tidy, add comments

* Tidy, simplify ForkChoice, fix compile issue

* Tidy, removed dead file

* Increase http request timeout

* Fix failing rest_api test

* Set HTTP timeout back to 5s

* Apply fix to get_ancestor

* Address Michael's comments

* Fix typo

* Revert "Fix broken attestation verification test"

This reverts commit 722cdc903b12611de27916a57eeecfa3224f2279.

Co-authored-by: Kirk Baird <baird.k@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Michael Sproul <michael@sigmaprime.io>
2020-06-17 11:10:22 +10:00