Skip to content
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

Operator attestation policy #10721

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 18, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
25 changes: 23 additions & 2 deletions packages/fast-usdc/src/exos/transaction-feed.js
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
import { makeTracer } from '@agoric/internal';
import { prepareDurablePublishKit } from '@agoric/notifier';
import { M } from '@endo/patterns';
import { keyEQ, M } from '@endo/patterns';
import { Fail } from '@endo/errors';
import { CctpTxEvidenceShape } from '../type-guards.js';
import { defineInertInvitation } from '../utils/zoe.js';
import { prepareOperatorKit } from './operator-kit.js';
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -127,6 +128,7 @@ export const prepareTransactionFeedKit = (zone, zcf) => {
const { operators, pending } = this.state;
trace('submitEvidence', operatorId, evidence);

// TODO https://github.com/Agoric/agoric-sdk/pull/10720
// TODO validate that it's a valid for Fast USDC before accepting
// E.g. that the `recipientAddress` is the FU settlement account and that
// the EUD is a chain supported by FU.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -160,7 +162,26 @@ export const prepareTransactionFeedKit = (zone, zcf) => {
return;
}

// TODO verify that all found deep equal
let lastEvidence;
for (const store of found) {
const next = store.get(txHash);
if (lastEvidence) {
if (keyEQ(lastEvidence, next)) {
lastEvidence = next;
} else {
trace(
'🚨 conflicting evidence for',
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

is this a red-alert situation? It seems like we recover: we don't act on inconsistent evidence.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it deserves immediate operational attention if two oracles are disagreeing. At least one is unreliable and may require immediate action.

txHash,
':',
lastEvidence,
'!=',
next,
Comment on lines +176 to +178
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

if we have to use this in anger, I expect we'll want to see which operator submitted which evidence.

is that already traced?

);
Fail`conflicting evidence for ${txHash}`;
}
}
lastEvidence = next;
}

// sufficient agreement, so remove from pending and publish
for (const store of found) {
Expand Down
43 changes: 43 additions & 0 deletions packages/fast-usdc/test/exos/transaction-feed.test.ts
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ test('happy aggregation', async t => {
const evidenceSubscriber = feedKit.public.getEvidenceSubscriber();

const { op1, op2, op3 } = await makeOperators(feedKit);

const e1 = MockCctpTxEvidences.AGORIC_PLUS_OSMO();
op1.operator.submitEvidence(e1);
op2.operator.submitEvidence(e1);
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -74,6 +75,48 @@ test('happy aggregation', async t => {
});
});

test('disagreement', async t => {
const feedKit = makeFeedKit();
const { op1, op2 } = await makeOperators(feedKit);
const e1 = MockCctpTxEvidences.AGORIC_PLUS_OSMO();
const e1bad = { ...e1, tx: { ...e1.tx, amount: 999_999_999n } };
assert(e1.txHash === e1bad.txHash);
op1.operator.submitEvidence(e1);

t.throws(() => op2.operator.submitEvidence(e1bad), {
message:
'conflicting evidence for "0xc81bc6105b60a234c7c50ac17816ebcd5561d366df8bf3be59ff387552761702"',
});
});

test('disagreement after publishing', async t => {
const feedKit = makeFeedKit();
const evidenceSubscriber = feedKit.public.getEvidenceSubscriber();
const { op1, op2, op3 } = await makeOperators(feedKit);
const e1 = MockCctpTxEvidences.AGORIC_PLUS_OSMO();
const e1bad = { ...e1, tx: { ...e1.tx, amount: 999_999_999n } };
assert(e1.txHash === e1bad.txHash);
op1.operator.submitEvidence(e1);
op2.operator.submitEvidence(e1);

t.like(await evidenceSubscriber.getUpdateSince(0), {
updateCount: 1n,
});

// it's simply ignored
t.notThrows(() => op3.operator.submitEvidence(e1bad));
t.like(await evidenceSubscriber.getUpdateSince(0), {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why ask for updates since 0 again? isn't the n+1th call supposed to pass in the updateCount from the nth call?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's just a handy way to ask for the latest without risk of a hanging await while writing tests

updateCount: 1n,
});

// now another op repeats the bad evidence, so it's published to the stream.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ooh. tricky.

// It's the responsibility of the Advancer to fail because it has already processed that tx hash.
op1.operator.submitEvidence(e1bad);
t.like(await evidenceSubscriber.getUpdateSince(0), {
updateCount: 2n,
});
});

test('disabled operator', async t => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good; the "unknown transaction" test mixed in testing this, and I wondered about reducing coverage.

const feedKit = makeFeedKit();
const { op1 } = await makeOperators(feedKit);
Expand Down
Loading