profile
viewpoint
If you are wondering where the data of this site comes from, please visit https://api.github.com/users/nepeat/events. GitMemory does not store any data, but only uses NGINX to cache data for a period of time. The idea behind GitMemory is simply to give users a better reading experience.

general-programming/torspider 1

public bad code that crawls tor for terrible homemade spaghetti analytics | "Great repository names are short and memorable. Need inspiration? How about urban-fiesta."

general-programming/uploaderthingy 1

thingy? thingie? which is the more proper one

filipnyquist/winter-arg-tester 0

Node.js stuff for Valve's Winter 2015 ARG

general-programming/alpine-tor 0

Forked rotating tor pool with haproxy load balancer for v3 onions and tor master building.

general-programming/bad-car-code 0

Bad code that does stuff to the CAN bus with the Panda.

general-programming/docker 0

🐳 LibreNMS Docker image based on Alpine Linux and Nginx

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

fix runtime for dogecoin on Alpine Linux (musl libc)

Realising.... is this going to be thread safe? As in, do we have cases where it hashes multiple blocks from different threads?

chey

comment created time in 41 minutes

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

fix runtime for dogecoin on Alpine Linux (musl libc)

Verified with and without on Alpine Linux 3.14.0 on AWS, and looks good.

chey

comment created time in an hour

push eventdogecoin/dogecoin

Patrick Lodder

commit sha 1efd93e613e3c4be4c7a930d6028528ad5b53bdd

[ci] Enable windows unit tests

view details

Ross Nicoll

commit sha a5eb8c4bcb6335b6d5ce9ef0875571c63e160052

Merge pull request #2322 from patricklodder/1.14.4-actions-win-tests [CI] Enable windows unit tests

view details

push time in an hour

PR merged dogecoin/dogecoin

[CI] Enable windows unit tests QA

Enables unit testing for windows builds using GH Actions

In my dirty version of #2320, windows tests failed consistently, but it turns out on the clean version that we merged, they just work. So we can simply enable the tests in CI configuration :grin:

+2 -2

3 comments

1 changed file

patricklodder

pr closed time in an hour

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[CI] Enable windows unit tests

As long as we're clear this is just covering a limited amount.

patricklodder

comment created time in an hour

PullRequestEvent

PR closed dogecoin/dogecoin

Utils and libraries: Update ZMQ to 4.3.4

work in progress

+4 -7

17 comments

1 changed file

sabotagebeats

pr closed time in 2 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

Utils and libraries: Update ZMQ to 4.3.4

Restarting CI after the move to GitHub Actions

sabotagebeats

comment created time in 2 hours

push eventdogecoin/dogecoin

p-j01

commit sha 4c68245cf79036b2eba493221d93791b98412448

fix: Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

view details

Ross Nicoll

commit sha 760b9d05e650d2ecb7349b16b02bbec942d99a3d

Merge pull request #2306 from p-j01/1.14.4-dev-issue2282 [vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

view details

push time in 2 hours

PR merged dogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

Description

Fix suggestion to #2282 raised by @yixiao5428 . Integrated bitcoin/bitcoin@76f7481 changes to src/validation.cpp.

Notes

make check passes all tests.

I need confirmation, but it looks like there are no unit tests for net_processing.cpp and SendMessages().

Issues Related

#2282

+40 -3

1 comment

2 changed files

p-j01

pr closed time in 2 hours

Pull request review commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

 static const int64_t ORPHAN_TX_EXPIRE_TIME = 20 * 60; static const int64_t ORPHAN_TX_EXPIRE_INTERVAL = 5 * 60; /** Default number of orphan+recently-replaced txn to keep around for block reconstruction */ static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_RECONSTRUCTION_EXTRA_TXN = 100;-+/** Headers download timeout expressed in microseconds+ *  Timeout = base + per_header * (expected number of headers) */+static constexpr int64_t HEADERS_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_BASE = 15 * 60 * 1000000; // 15 minutes+static constexpr int64_t HEADERS_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_PER_HEADER = 1000; // 1ms/header

Nope, I misunderstood, this is a tolerance window that makes the node more patient the further back it's starting. It's fine as-is.

p-j01

comment created time in 2 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

fix runtime for dogecoin on Alpine Linux (musl libc)

I'm uncertain as to what the correct solution to this one is because I'm fairly unfamiliar with building on these systems. The docs make it seem like you can specific a thread stack size, but I haven't been able to reproduce that successfully. I mainly just don't like these specific changes because they may have very unintended impacts relating to crypto stuff (mainly the scratchpad that can be modified by multiple threads at the same exact time). The lowest impact solution might just be to state that it's not supported.

As for reproduction? It might be that you're not running into the issue in the tests because they're being run on the main thread. You may need to create a thread before calling scrypt_1024_1_1_256 (or CBlockHeader::GetPoWHash()). Something simple like:

#include <iostream>
#include <thread>

static const int SCRYPT_SCRATCHPAD_SIZE = 131072 + 63;

void scrypt_1024_1_1_256(const char *input, char *output)
{
    char scratchpad[SCRYPT_SCRATCHPAD_SIZE];
    printf("Hello world");
}

int main()
{
    std::thread([] {
            char output[32] = {};
            scrypt_1024_1_1_256("Hello", output);
    }).join();

    return 0;
}
chey

comment created time in 2 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

CI: Cirrus Integration

Anyone object to us enabling both Cirrus & GitHub actions? Bit of a resource waste but might find stuff we've missed elsewhere. @langerhans?

mmicael1

comment created time in 2 hours

Pull request review commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

 static const int64_t ORPHAN_TX_EXPIRE_TIME = 20 * 60; static const int64_t ORPHAN_TX_EXPIRE_INTERVAL = 5 * 60; /** Default number of orphan+recently-replaced txn to keep around for block reconstruction */ static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_RECONSTRUCTION_EXTRA_TXN = 100;-+/** Headers download timeout expressed in microseconds+ *  Timeout = base + per_header * (expected number of headers) */+static constexpr int64_t HEADERS_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_BASE = 15 * 60 * 1000000; // 15 minutes+static constexpr int64_t HEADERS_DOWNLOAD_TIMEOUT_PER_HEADER = 1000; // 1ms/header

Given our headers are a LOT bigger than Bitcoin Core (because they contain a Litecoin header and a transaction), should this be higher? I think most of that time will be finding the header on disk, though, so thinking 1000-1500 range.

I'll run some experiments.

p-j01

comment created time in 2 hours

PullRequestEvent

PR closed dogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

Description

From #2279,

The wallet uses ordered inputs of transactions (src/wallet/wallet.cpp, line 2628 - 2640), which may incur privacy risks like fingerprinting the wallet to observers.

This PR change the original order by shuffling the inputs.

+11 -2

5 comments

1 changed file

p-j01

pr closed time in 3 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

Restarting CI

p-j01

comment created time in 3 hours

PullRequestEvent

PR closed dogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

Description

Fix suggestion to #2282 raised by @yixiao5428 . Integrated bitcoin/bitcoin@76f7481 changes to src/validation.cpp.

Notes

make check passes all tests.

I need confirmation, but it looks like there are no unit tests for net_processing.cpp and SendMessages().

Issues Related

#2282

+40 -3

1 comment

2 changed files

p-j01

pr closed time in 3 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability] Disconnect stalling peers after timeout of header sync

Restarting CI

p-j01

comment created time in 3 hours

PR opened dogecoin/dogecoin

CI: Cirrus Integration
+170 -0

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 7 hours

startedTheEpicBlock/immersive-cursedness

started time in 10 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[CI] Enable windows unit tests

@rnicoll this is just for ./qa and has always been the case on travis for 1.14, see https://travis-ci.com/github/dogecoin/dogecoin/jobs/513292292#L2911

I'm ok with enabling it if you think it adds anything?

patricklodder

comment created time in 11 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[CI] Enable windows unit tests

Win tests currently disabled by default.  Use -win option to enable

https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/pull/2322/checks?check_run_id=2866367839#step:10:125

Did think it was a bit fast

patricklodder

comment created time in 11 hours

PR opened dogecoin/dogecoin

[CI] Enable windows unit tests QA

Enables unit testing for windows builds using GH Actions

In my dirty version of #2320, windows tests failed consistently, but it turns out on the clean version that we merged, they just work. So we can simply enable the tests in CI configuration :grin:

+2 -2

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 12 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

+1

p-j01

comment created time in 12 hours

issue commentdogecoin/dogecoin

Dogecoin Memory Leak

@rnicoll on which block were you at? As far I can see here is that Dogecoin is using stable 1GB (sometimes up to 1.5 GB too) memory until at blocks ~80k hits - from there, the memory just keep growing until it's full and it crashes at around ~100k block with 8GB memory

YanDevDe

comment created time in 12 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

Should we start merging them on 1.21-dev (including some refactoring PRs)?

Already part of 1.21-dev: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/commit/fd44ac1e8b

p-j01

comment created time in 12 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

Sure. Should we start merging them on 1.21-dev (including some refactoring PRs)?

p-j01

comment created time in 13 hours

pull request commentdogecoin/dogecoin

[vulnerability][fix]: Add unordered transaction inputs

Merging this into 1.14.4 will immediately identify all 1.10.x and 1.14.x based wallets that may have vulnerabilities that we fix in 1.14.4 and any future releases. I would prefer to not merge this, but instead fix all the vulnerabilities as long as we have an active 1.14-maint, and only introduce this change in wallet behavior with 1.21. That way, we do not directly link wallet behavior to potential vulnerabilities.

Thoughts?

p-j01

comment created time in 13 hours