Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

check vote costs against block limits in would_fit #34207

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 22, 2023

Conversation

apfitzge
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

CostTracker::would_fit incorrectly not checking votes against block limits.
Introduced in #33230

Summary of Changes

Remove the else so we check against block limits regardless of is_simple_vote.

Fixes #

@apfitzge apfitzge marked this pull request as ready for review November 22, 2023 20:49
@apfitzge
Copy link
Contributor Author

IMO, this should be backported to v1.17, as that is when the bug was introduced.
If #29595 (2ry7ygxiYURULZCrypHhveanvP5tzZ4toRwVp89oCNSj) is activated, this would become a consensus breaking bug.

Copy link
Contributor

@tao-stones tao-stones left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@tao-stones
Copy link
Contributor

IMO, this should be backported to v1.17, as that is when the bug was introduced. If #29595 (2ry7ygxiYURULZCrypHhveanvP5tzZ4toRwVp89oCNSj) is activated, this would become a consensus breaking bug.

Agree that it is better to backport it to 1.17, considering overpacking votes could delay reply beyond 400ms

@apfitzge apfitzge added the v1.17 PRs that should be backported to v1.17 label Nov 22, 2023
@apfitzge apfitzge merged commit 6d703ed into solana-labs:master Nov 22, 2023
33 checks passed
@apfitzge apfitzge deleted the bugfix_vote_cost_check branch November 22, 2023 21:19
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Nov 22, 2023

Backports to the beta branch are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for fixing bugs, security issues, and perf regressions. Changes intended for backport should be structured such that a minimum effective diff can be committed separately from any refactoring, plumbing, cleanup, etc that are not strictly necessary to achieve the goal. Any of the latter should go only into master and ride the normal stabilization schedule. Exceptions include CI/metrics changes, CLI improvements and documentation updates on a case by case basis.

mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 22, 2023
apfitzge added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2023
…#34207) (#34210)

Co-authored-by: Andrew Fitzgerald <apfitzge@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
v1.17 PRs that should be backported to v1.17
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants