-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 985
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
upgrade status-go with geth 1.9.5 #9056
Conversation
Pull Request Checklist
|
Jenkins BuildsClick to see older builds (63)
|
I did a separate PR just for Go upgrade to not compound the issues: #9065 |
bec6eae
to
e22ea21
Compare
8f2e233
to
490c8b1
Compare
@adambabik How will this play with the ongoing security audit? That's not quite clear to me. If this gets in later, how does that impact compatibility? Is there a related spec PR? cc @rachelhamlin FYI |
and @corpetty |
@adambabik it looks like the build fails on Windows because of
I already had issues with this library once and had to patch and make an upstream PR. Is it required for the upgrade? |
@adambabik this commit seems relevant to the failing Windows build: golang/sys@855e68c It looks like for a while, |
That change is reflected here status-im/status-go@9e971a0#diff-b17bb1df6ac4cec827bbb4813d22c685R181 |
Fixed the Windows build by upgrading |
@oskarth what kind of spec change do you have on mind? Does our audit verify go-ethereum and Whisper libraries as well? This is nothing more than just a library update. |
Good catch @pombeirp! I merge the new changes from develop because the build failed due to some ClojureScript errors. |
The same :/
|
Since #8630 has been merged rebasing should fix the desktop build failures. |
@adambabik Perhaps this has been done already in a previous PR (says
|
Looking at develop commit hash It'd be good to have clarity on this PoW change w.r.t v1 and the security audit, as this was initially raised a month ago (and before that as well), in e.g. protocol call. |
98% of end-end tests have passed
Failed tests (1)Click to expand
Passed tests (46)Click to expand |
I would also like some clarity here w.r.t. PoW change and us addressing it. I was under the assumption that we fixed this months ago, is that right? |
@corpetty no, it's only now with this PR. However, we are using extremely low PoW anyway so we actually do not use PoW protection at all. |
@adambabik Regardless of our low PoW, that doesn't answer the underlying issue of compatibility. They call it out explicitly, and we should be explicit about which version of PoW we support and why. It doesn't make any sense to ship an old version in v1 and then do another release an incompatible version. From what I can tell here, this seems like a blocker for security audit and something we have to sort out asap, so there's clarity in (a) code (b) spec (c) commit hash for ToB |
Also cc @kdeme as he identified the spec mismatch in the first place here ethereum/go-ethereum#18070 and fixed here ethereum/go-ethereum#19753 |
Be careful, even though you are using extremely low PoW, this can still cause a lot of messages to be dropped. PoW calculation is: So practically, you can do the worst case calculation easily. Due to a completely different So yeah, If you already have to break compatibility with v1, and it is still possible to do so, then I suggest you try to get this in there still. |
I agree 100%. We decided on breaking compatibility for V1 so this fix of PoW calculation for Whisper V6 should also be included in V1 release. Regarding clarity:
@kdeme thanks for clarification on this. Yeah, in my opinion, we definitely should try to squeeze this in. We practically have PoW close to 0 ( |
@adambabik re dropping messages based on PoW @ incoming and outgoing. In the Nimbus implementation following drops at a node can occur:
On top of that you then have filters which can also filter (not drop) based on PoW and other parameters. It's been a while that I looked at the geth implementation, but iirc it is the same situation there. After all, functionally wise, inspiration was drawn from that implementation. |
No regressions found here when tested PR build between iOS 12 and Android 8.1
|
After status-go#1617 was merged the commit in I'd recommend tagging the |
@jakubgs that's my plan :) Trying to create a release https://ci.status.im/blue/organizations/jenkins/status-go%2Fmanual/detail/manual/475/pipeline first. |
fbb9845
to
6e974bc
Compare
How can I merge it after all checks get green? |
With the |
Signed-off-by: Adam Babik <a.babik@designfortress.com>
6e974bc
to
df87496
Compare
No description provided.