-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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
lnwire: detect invalid timestamp field #9084
lnwire: detect invalid timestamp field #9084
Conversation
Currently if an incorrect number of timestamps is given, we fail later on in the GossipSyncer. It makes more sense to fail right away, since we already do that for incorrect SCID formats (e.g., unsorted or duplicate SCIDs). There is already a matching check in Encode for incorrect number of timestamps, so adding this check to Decode makes things symmetric.
The check is no longer required, as it is now done during decoding.
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are limited to specific labels. Labels to auto review (1)
Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes this change makes sense, aren't the fuzz tests run somewhere in some kind CI or was this a new input to the fuzzer by Goegge ?
Missing Release-Notes
The existing fuzz corpus is run during CI to test for regressions, but no new fuzzing is done. What happened is that @ellemouton added the new timestamp field, and we never reran the fuzz tests to exercise the new code. This is more motivation to set up continuous fuzzing (either #5965 or something custom). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice, makes sense 👍
Currently if an incorrect number of timestamps is given, we fail later on in the GossipSyncer. It makes more sense to fail right away, since we already do that for incorrect SCID formats (e.g., unsorted or duplicate SCIDs). There is already a matching check in Encode for incorrect number of timestamps, so adding this check to Decode makes things symmetric.
@dergoegge found this by running the existing
FuzzReplyChannelRange
fuzz target.Input:
Trace: