From: Travis Johansen <travis.johanssen@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] zapwallettxes problem and wallet DB ordering
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:30:49 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOyr6f1b94DFsmP6XeZ0KRaJSf0KQboOO_X1Au_e3EgiaN68dw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Most of the issue seems to be because of
CWalletDB::ReorderTransactions. After applying zapwallettxes, I
noticed that listtransactions was no longer listing new transactions.
After further investigation, new tx records were being given a low
nOrderPos number while old acentry records were high enough that they
were being ordered at the end of listtransactions all the time. My
theory is that after the malleability attacks, the wallet DB got
filled with dead transactions that were removed by zapwallettxes, then
somehow ReorderTransactions got invoked and reset nOrderPosNext. This
left the acentry records with high nOrderPos and the new transactions
being added near the beginning.
I believe this is due to two issues:
1. ReorderTransactions only collects the acentry records from "":
ListAccountCreditDebit("", acentries);
which should probably be:
ListAccountCreditDebit("*", acentries);
2. ReorderTransactions seems to try too hard to maintain previous
ordering and likely fails. Or at least it did after I applied the fix
above. Would it not be better to just reorder the records with:
for (TxItems::iterator it = txByTime.begin(); it != txByTime.end(); ++it)
{
CWalletTx *const pwtx = (*it).second.first;
CAccountingEntry *const pacentry = (*it).second.second;
int64_t& nOrderPos = (pwtx != 0) ? pwtx->nOrderPos :
pacentry->nOrderPos;
nOrderPos = ++nOrderPosNext;
if (pwtx)
{
if (!WriteTx(pwtx->GetHash(), *pwtx))
return DB_LOAD_FAIL;
}
else
if (!WriteAccountingEntry(pacentry->nEntryNo, *pacentry))
return DB_LOAD_FAIL;
}
if (!WriteOrderPosNext(nOrderPosNext))
return DB_LOAD_FAIL;
Perhaps I'm missing something here but this seems to be a better
solution given the simplicity of the ordering system.
Unsurprisingly, applying the two fixes (and hacking one entry to an
nOrderPos of -1 to trigger ReorderTransactions) corrects the ordering
in my wallet DB. Or at least I think it does. Does anyone know why
this might be a bad idea? I'm new to the code and would like to know
if I'm potentially breaking something else.
reply other threads:[~2014-03-12 19:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOyr6f1b94DFsmP6XeZ0KRaJSf0KQboOO_X1Au_e3EgiaN68dw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=travis.johanssen@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox