check counterparty nextSequenceSend in recvPacket
#5469
Conversation
…o charly/set_nextseqrecv
…o charly/set_nextseqrecv
crodriguezvega
requested review from
colin-axner,
AdityaSripal and
damiannolan
as code owners
|
I thought I saw this code flagged for removal in another PR yesterday? |
Yes, but shouldn't we check this anyway as a defensive check? It is also present in the spec. |
| // only error if the counterparty next sequence send is set (> 0) | ||
| counterpartyNextSequenceSend := counterpartyUpgrade.NextSequenceSend | ||
| if counterpartyNextSequenceSend != 0 && packet.GetSequence() >= counterpartyNextSequenceSend { | ||
| return errorsmod.Wrapf( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
document that this is unexpected error and that counterparty has messed up if this error is reached
There was a problem hiding this comment.
approval pending team consensus on necessity (but i think this seems to be consensus!) thanks @crodriguezvega!
| if channel.State == types.FLUSHING { | ||
| counterpartyUpgrade, found := k.GetCounterpartyUpgrade(ctx, packet.GetDestPort(), packet.GetDestChannel()) | ||
| if !found { | ||
| return errorsmod.Wrapf(types.ErrUpgradeNotFound, "counterparty upgrade not found: portID (%s), channelID (%s)", packet.GetDestPort(), packet.GetDestChannel()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this block receives after try completes but before ack or confirm completes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm i would be in favor of just not performing this defensive check and allowing it through until we get the info stored. nice catch!
| // this error should never be reached, as under normal circumstances the counterparty | ||
| // should not send any packets after the upgrade has been started. | ||
| counterpartyNextSequenceSend := counterpartyUpgrade.NextSequenceSend | ||
| if packet.GetSequence() >= counterpartyNextSequenceSend { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The zero check in the spec is effectively checking if the counterparty upgrade is not set. Since we do this inside if found clause it is unnecessary here.
If the counterpartyUpgrade is set, the counterpartyNextSequenceSend must be set to a nonzero value
| suite.Require().False(found) | ||
|
|
||
| // events := ctx.EventManager().Events().ToABCIEvents() | ||
| // expEvents := ibctesting.EventsMap{ |
|
I can fix merge conflicts |
…arlos/check-counterparty-nextsequencesend-recvpacket
colin-axner
deleted the
carlos/check-counterparty-nextsequencesend-recvpacket
branch
Description
closes: #XXXX
Commit Message / Changelog Entry
see the guidelines for commit messages. (view raw markdown for examples)
Before we can merge this PR, please make sure that all the following items have been
checked off. If any of the checklist items are not applicable, please leave them but
write a little note why.
docs/) or specification (x/<module>/spec/).godoccomments.Files changedin the Github PR explorer.Codecov Reportin the comment section below once CI passes.