[actpool] forbid processing system action

[dustinxie]

Description

Please include a summary of the changes and the related issue. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Fixes #(issue)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• [] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [] Code refactor or improvement
• [] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause a new or changed behavior of existing functionality)
• [] This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

• make test
• [] fullsync
• [] Other test (please specify)

Test Configuration:

• Firmware version:
• Hardware:
• Toolchain:
• SDK:

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[dustinxie]

for safety, to prevent potential replay of grantreward

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3867 (a2f50f8) into master (e1f0636) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 60.79%.

❗ Current head a2f50f8 differs from pull request most recent head ed9954f. Consider uploading reports for the commit ed9954f to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3867      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   75.39%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         303      318      +15     
  Lines       25923    27303    +1380     
==========================================
+ Hits        19541    20586    +1045     
- Misses       5360     5661     +301     
- Partials     1022     1056      +34     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
action/protocol/execution/evm/evm.go	43.52% <0.00%> (-2.95%)	⬇️
action/protocol/execution/evm/evmstatedbadapter.go	66.77% <ø> (ø)
action/protocol/poll/consortium.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
action/protocol/poll/staking_committee.go	43.85% <0.00%> (ø)
...tion/protocol/staking/contractstake_bucket_type.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
api/web3server_marshal.go	93.21% <ø> (ø)
blockchain/config.go	74.54% <ø> (ø)
blockindex/contractstaking/dummy_indexer.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
blockindex/sgd_indexer.go	2.45% <2.45%> (ø)
action/protocol/staking/contractstake_indexer.go	14.28% <14.28%> (ø)
... and 29 more

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[CoderZhi]

https://github.com/iotexproject/iotex-core/blob/master/state/factory/workingset.go#L455

[CoderZhi]

It has been prevented in workingset

[dustinxie]

It has been prevented in workingset

yes, but that's after a block is proposed (and then found invalid), so a block is wasted. In other words, someone can potentially keep sending such a system action and prevent block being generated, like a DoS attack?

so it's worthwhile to early-detect this and throw it out of action pool?

[CoderZhi]

It has been prevented in workingset

yes, but that's after a block is proposed (and then found invalid), so a block is wasted. In other words, someone can potentially keep sending such a system action and prevent block being generated, like a DoS attack?

so it's worthwhile to early-detect this and throw it out of action pool?

if so, we need to prevent adding it to actpool.

[dustinxie]

It has been prevented in workingset

yes, but that's after a block is proposed (and then found invalid), so a block is wasted. In other words, someone can potentially keep sending such a system action and prevent block being generated, like a DoS attack?
so it's worthwhile to early-detect this and throw it out of action pool?

if so, we need to prevent adding it to actpool.

yes, by early-exiting here, system action is neither added to local actpool (L436 below), nor being propagated to p2p network (L460 below)

[CoderZhi]

It has been prevented in workingset

yes, but that's after a block is proposed (and then found invalid), so a block is wasted. In other words, someone can potentially keep sending such a system action and prevent block being generated, like a DoS attack?
so it's worthwhile to early-detect this and throw it out of action pool?

if so, we need to prevent adding it to actpool.

yes, by early-exiting here, system action is neither added to local actpool (L436 below), nor being propagated to p2p network (L460 below)

actpool is the component which is responsible to gate system action

[sonarcloud]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
9.3% Duplication