fix(horizon_sync): check for leftover unpruned outputs #5704
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ghpbot-tari-project
added
P-acks_required
SWvheerden
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2023
ghpbot-tari-project
removed
the
P-reviews_required
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Add a new check after UTXO sync, to ensure that the peer did not send any leftover unpruned outputs
Motivation and Context
On UTXO horizon sync, we only validate rangeproofs when receiving a specific type of output from the peer, assuming that that type will always be the last element of the stream, we then validate the rangeproofs of all unpruned outputs.
But a malicious peer may send more unpruned outputs afterwards, bypassing the rangeproof validation. We need a check at the end of the stream to ensure that the peer did not send any leftover unpruned outputs.
How Has This Been Tested?
Tests pass
What process can a PR reviewer use to test or verify this change?
Code review
Breaking Changes