Skip to content

Penalize peer if missing blobs #6525

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

dapplion
Copy link
Collaborator

@dapplion dapplion commented Oct 21, 2024

Issue Addressed

During range sync, if a peer replies with empty blobs we do not downscore that peer. We should.

Proposed Changes

Downscore peer if we can't match block and data when constructing an RpcBlock

The PRs below also move these two variants into not being internal

@dapplion dapplion added the ready-for-review The code is ready for review label Oct 21, 2024
@@ -49,6 +47,8 @@ impl Error {
| Error::SlotClockError => ErrorCategory::Internal,
Error::InvalidBlobs { .. }
| Error::InvalidColumn { .. }
| Error::MissingBlobs
| Error::MissingCustodyColumns
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The category change makes sense but it doesn't look like we use this to determine peer penalty.

Related issue:
#4546

I think we'll need to handle BlockError::AvailabilityCheck in handle_failed_chain_segment:

fn handle_failed_chain_segment(&self, error: BlockError) -> Result<(), ChainSegmentFailed> {

Copy link
Member

@jxs jxs Oct 24, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

it seems we use Jimmy, category() is called on:

BlockError::AvailabilityCheck(e)
if e.category() == AvailabilityCheckErrorCategory::Internal =>
{
// There errors indicate internal problems and should not downscore the peer
warn!(self.log, "Internal availability check failure"; "block_root" => ?block_root, "error" => ?e);
// Here we choose *not* to call `on_processing_failure` because this could result in a bad
// lookup state transition. This error invalidates both blob and block requests, and we don't know the
// state of both requests. Blobs may have already successfullly processed for example.
// We opt to drop the lookup instead.
Action::Drop
}
other => {
debug!(self.log, "Invalid lookup component"; "block_root" => ?block_root, "component" => ?R::response_type(), "error" => ?other);
let peer_id = request_state.on_processing_failure()?;
cx.report_peer(
peer_id,
PeerAction::MidToleranceError,
match R::response_type() {
ResponseType::Block => "lookup_block_processing_failure",
ResponseType::Blob => "lookup_blobs_processing_failure",
},
);
Action::Retry

with Lion's change Error::MissingBlobs and Error::MissingCustodyColumns are now reported as ErrorCategory::Malicious instead of ErrorCategory::Internal which makes it so that those nodes get reported via report_peer

@jimmygchen jimmygchen added waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation. and removed ready-for-review The code is ready for review labels Oct 22, 2024
@jimmygchen
Copy link
Member

This is now covered in #7352, closing.

@jimmygchen jimmygchen closed this May 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
waiting-on-author The reviewer has suggested changes and awaits thier implementation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants