Skip to content

Conversation

The `SHA256AutoDetect` return output is used, among other use cases, to
name benchmarks. Using a comma breaks the CSV output.

This change replaces the comma with a semicolon, which fixes the issue.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33340
Rebased-From: 790b440
@fanquake fanquake added this to the 29.2 milestone Sep 9, 2025
@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented Sep 9, 2025

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/33344.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK darosior, mzumsande

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Rather than trying to match the apt installed clang version, which is
prone to intermittent issues. i.e bitcoin#33345.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33364
Rebased-From: b736052
instagibbs and others added 4 commits September 12, 2025 15:43
Since bitcoin#29412, we have not allowed mutated blocks to continue
being processed immediately the block is received, but this
is only done for the legacy BLOCK message.

Extend these checks as belt-and-suspenders to not allow
similar mutation strategies to affect relay by honest peers
by applying the check inside
PartiallyDownloadedBlock::FillBlock, immediately before
returning READ_STATUS_OK.

This also removes the extraneous CheckBlock call.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#32646
Rebased-From: bac9ee4
Previously in debug builds, this would cause an Assume crash if
FillBlock had been called previously. This could happen when multiple
blocktxn messages were received.

Co-Authored-By: Greg Sanders <[email protected]>

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33296
Rebased-From: 5e585a0
Add test_multiple_blocktxn_response that checks that the peer is
disconnected.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33296
Rebased-From: 8b62647
@instagibbs
Copy link
Member

#32646 and #33296 backports look correct

@Crypt-iQ
Copy link
Contributor

Checked that #32646 and #33296 backports are correct and ran p2p_compactblocks.py just to be sure.

Tor inbound connections do not reveal the peer's actual network address.
Therefore do not apply whitelist permissions to them.

Co-authored-by: Vasil Dimov <[email protected]>

Github-Pull: bitcoin#33395
Rebased-From: f563ce9
@fanquake fanquake force-pushed the 29_2_backports branch 2 times, most recently from be76435 to 6adce94 Compare September 17, 2025 13:21
@fanquake fanquake marked this pull request as ready for review September 17, 2025 13:54
Copy link
Member

@darosior darosior left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK f2bd79f

Copy link
Contributor

@mzumsande mzumsande left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK f2bd79f

I mostly looked at the p2p backports (#32646, #33296, #33395), the rest looked correct too but I didn't check very deeply.

@glozow glozow merged commit 7e1eca4 into bitcoin:29.x Sep 17, 2025
18 checks passed
@fanquake fanquake deleted the 29_2_backports branch September 17, 2025 18:06
@glozow glozow mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2025
14 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants