Broadcast Slashing on equivocation #14693
Conversation
| // Check for equivocation before inserting into fork choice | ||
| slashing, slashingErr := s.detectEquivocatingBlock(cfg.ctx, cfg.roblock) | ||
| if slashingErr != nil { | ||
| return errors.Wrap(slashingErr, "could not detect equivocating block") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should probably log instead of returning and preventing FCU? could not check for block equivocation seems more accurate
|
I think this should probably be done in the gossip validation of beacon blocks for two reasons:
Fwiw I am just an interested bystander using this as a learning opportunity. Feel free to ignore or let me know if this is unhelpful |
| @@ -75,6 +75,23 @@ func (s *Service) postBlockProcess(cfg *postBlockProcessConfig) error { | |||
| defer reportProcessingTime(startTime) | |||
| defer reportAttestationInclusion(cfg.roblock.Block()) | |||
|
|
|||
| // Check for equivocation before inserting into fork choice | |||
| slashing, slashingErr := s.detectEquivocatingBlock(cfg.ctx, cfg.roblock) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the wrong spot to place this detection. An equivocation will never make it to this point since we check for s.hasSeenBlockIndexSlot during validateBeaconBlockPubSub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
moved this to validateBeaconBlockPubSub
| return errors.Wrap(slashingErr, "could not detect equivocating block") | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if slashing != nil { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Better if the broadcasting logic is also handled by the helper so that it's encapsulated, the helper should call a broadcasting routine instead of returnning the slashing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Addressed this in the next commit
beacon-chain/blockchain/service.go
Outdated
| if header1.Header.Slot == header2.Header.Slot && | ||
| header1.Header.ProposerIndex == header2.Header.ProposerIndex { | ||
|
|
||
| header1Root, err := header1.Header.HashTreeRoot() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No need to hash again here, you already have the root when you call this helper.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fixed this in the next commit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When moving this check to the right spot instead after the call to ReceiveBlock we don't have the root yet (since we only hash after we know we haven't seen the block), we should check if the signatures are different instead, as a different root will result in a different signature.
shyam-patel-kira
changed the title
|
Hey @potuz, Thanks for the review, addressed the changes that were requested |
fixes #13088
The PR implements immediate broadcasting of slashing messages when detecting equivocating blocks, helping the network react more quickly to malicious behavior without relying on the full slasher service processing.