23.x backports

jonatack commented at 4:49 pm on March 9, 2022: member

Backport the following to 23.x:

DrahtBot added the label Backport on Mar 9, 2022

laanwj added this to the milestone 23.0 on Mar 10, 2022

jonatack renamed this:
~~[23.x] init, doc: improve -onlynet help and related tor/i2p documentation~~
23.x backports
on Mar 13, 2022

fanquake commented at 12:26 pm on March 13, 2022: member

These are missing the Github-Pull and Rebased-From metadata in the commit messages.

init, doc: improve -onlynet help and tor/i2p documentation

and harmonize them as follows

- s/outgoing/automatic outbound/
- s/Incoming/Inbound and manual/ (are not affected by this option.)
- s/only through network/only to network/
- s/this option. This option/this option. It/
- s/network types/networks/

and also pick up a few nits in doc/p2p-bad-ports.md

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24468
Rebased-From: a1db99a

2a6fcf9c13

rpc: rename getdeploymentinfo status-next to status_next

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24528
Rebased-From: 5d7c69b

ef6a37b7c4

test: set segwit height back to 0 on regtest

This was changed in #22818 from 0 to 1. Since it changes
BLOCK_OPT_WIT of the genesis block, older versions of bitcoin
core would not read regtest directories created with newer versions
without a reindex.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24527
Rebased-From: 5ce3057

b1646f1bb5

jonatack force-pushed on Mar 13, 2022

jonatack commented at 4:48 pm on March 13, 2022: member

These are missing the Github-Pull and Rebased-From metadata in the commit messages.

Thanks @fanquake, done.

gruve-p commented at 5:33 pm on March 17, 2022: contributor

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24512/commits/b1646f1bb573031ca587081276d9fe7c4873b8c9

Clarify in -maxtimeadjustment that only outbound peers influence time data

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24609
Rebased-From: 1bba72d

5d24f612d1

fanquake commented at 11:01 am on March 28, 2022: member

with the merged pulls.

Are you going to add the rest of the merged pulls that need backporting?

jonatack closed this on Mar 28, 2022

jonatack commented at 11:19 am on March 28, 2022: member

Closing as some of these aren’t considered as needing to be in v23, and I’m unsure as to which.

in src/rpc/blockchain.cpp:1484 in 7d495fda14 outdated

1480@@ -1481,7 +1481,7 @@ static void SoftForkDescPushBack(const CBlockIndex* blockindex, UniValue& softfo
1481     // BIP9 status
1482     bip9.pushKV("status", get_state_name(current_state));
1483     bip9.pushKV("since", g_versionbitscache.StateSinceHeight(blockindex->pprev, consensusParams, id));
1484-    bip9.pushKV("status-next", get_state_name(next_state));
1485+    bip9.pushKV("status_next", get_state_name(next_state));

MarcoFalke commented at 11:27 am on March 28, 2022:

If we don’t backport this, it should be reverted in master again

jonatack commented at 11:32 am on March 28, 2022:

IMO it should be backported along with the other pulls here, but it’s not up to me.

in src/chainparams.cpp:400 in 7d495fda14 outdated

396@@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ class CRegTestParams : public CChainParams {
397         consensus.BIP65Height = 1;  // Always active unless overridden
398         consensus.BIP66Height = 1;  // Always active unless overridden
399         consensus.CSVHeight = 1;    // Always active unless overridden
400-        consensus.SegwitHeight = 1; // Always active unless overridden
401+        consensus.SegwitHeight = 0; // Always active unless overridden

MarcoFalke commented at 11:27 am on March 28, 2022:

If we don’t backport this, it should be reverted in master again

MarcoFalke commented at 11:28 am on March 28, 2022: member

Then they should be reverted in master

jonatack commented at 11:31 am on March 28, 2022: member

I think they should all be backported (except maybe for #24527 if it causes a regression, unsure).

jonatack commented at 11:35 am on March 28, 2022: member

Re-opened per IRC feedback, added the merged pulls tagged for backport to v23, and suggested a few others in the description.

jonatack reopened this on Mar 28, 2022

jonatack force-pushed on Mar 28, 2022

Sjors commented at 10:04 am on March 29, 2022: member

#24523 would be a good backport candidate too, if it happens to be merged before the next release candidate

hebasto commented at 11:52 am on March 29, 2022: member

#24523 would be a good backport candidate too, if it happens to be merged before the next release candidate

It is ready for backporting now.

jonatack commented at 2:39 pm on March 29, 2022: member

#24523 would be a good backport candidate too, if it happens to be merged before the next release candidate

It is ready for backporting now.

Done but there was a merge conflict in configure.ac. I took all the changes from that branch; don’t hesitate to have a look.

in configure.ac:1446 in 5dbed641eb outdated

1437@@ -1438,13 +1438,21 @@ if test "$use_external_signer" != "no"; then
1438     ;;
1439     *)
1440       AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether Boost.Process can be used])
1441+      TEMP_CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS"
1442+      dnl Boost 1.78 requires the following workaround.
1443+      dnl See: https://github.com/boostorg/process/issues/235
1444+      CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wno-error=narrowing"
1445+      TEMP_CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS"
1446+      CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS $BOOST_CPPFLAGS"

fanquake commented at 9:26 am on March 30, 2022:

There are changes in 5dbed641eb118ab3f72a93f2b84dfc0220609f93 that are not part of the cherry-picked commit (532c64a7264dd3c7329e8839547837c57da7dbe8).

jonatack commented at 10:32 am on March 30, 2022:

Done. Those were from the merge conflict. Updated with the following diff to make the commits the same:

 0diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
 1index a2f425ce93..a37553de8e 100644
 2--- a/configure.ac
 3+++ b/configure.ac
 4@@ -1458,8 +1458,6 @@ if test "$use_external_signer" != "no"; then
 5       dnl Boost 1.78 requires the following workaround.
 6       dnl See: https://github.com/boostorg/process/issues/235
 7       CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS -Wno-error=narrowing"
 8-      TEMP_CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS"
 9-      CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS $BOOST_CPPFLAGS"
10       TEMP_LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS"
11       dnl Boost 1.73 and older require the following workaround.
12       LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS $PTHREAD_CFLAGS"
13@@ -1467,7 +1465,6 @@ if test "$use_external_signer" != "no"; then
14         [have_boost_process="yes"],
15         [have_boost_process="no"])
16       LDFLAGS="$TEMP_LDFLAGS"
17-      CPPFLAGS="$TEMP_CPPFLAGS"
18       CXXFLAGS="$TEMP_CXXFLAGS"
19       AC_MSG_RESULT([$have_boost_process])
20       if test "$have_boost_process" = "yes"; then

hebasto commented at 7:06 am on March 31, 2022:

The reason of the conflict is #24521 which has not been backported.

MarcoFalke commented at 7:20 am on March 31, 2022:

Maybe it is easier to just backport @https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24521 as well at this point?

jonatack commented at 8:42 am on March 31, 2022:

Maybe it is easier to just backport @#24521 as well at this point?

Done.

jonatack force-pushed on Mar 30, 2022

hebasto approved

hebasto commented at 7:04 am on March 31, 2022: member

~ACK c5cc0e5865c6ba4475d224a78361108f81e33c8d~ Sorry, retracted.

I’ve backported all commits locally, and got zero diff with this PR branch.

doc: create initial doc/cjdns.md for cjdns how-to documentation

Adapted in part from the CJDNS description in #23077 by Vasil Dimov
and from CJDNS documentation and feedback by Caleb James DeLisle.

Co-authored-by: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org>

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24555
Rebased-From: ed15848

4690e8af13

doc: update tor.md with cjdns and getnodeaddresses, fix tor grep,

and improve local addresses section

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24555
Rebased-From: 3bf6f0c

4148396229

doc: update i2p.md with cjdns, improve local addresses section

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24555
Rebased-From: f44efc3

7a553d4e65

doc, init: add links to doc/cjdns.md

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24663
Rebased-From: daae288

65b966743c

ci: Temporarily use clang-13 to work around clang-14 TSan bug

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24572
Rebased-From: fa43933

b05a59b69f

rpc: Exclude descriptor when address is excluded

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24636
Rebased-From: faf37c2

235b042594

contrib: fix signet miner (sighash mismatch)

PSBT signing was changed to use SIGHASH_DEFAULT by default in #22514.
The signet miner script sets the sighash type of the created PSBT to
SIGHASH_ALL, hence this leads to a sighash mismatch when the
`walletprocesspsbt` RPC is called. Fix this by explicitly passing the
correct sighash type.

Note that the same change was needed in one of our functional tests,
see commit d3992669df826899a3de78a77a366dab46028026.

Reported by gruve-p.

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24553
Rebased-From: 12cc020

eaa04194b9

util: add linkat to syscall sandbox (AllowFileSystem)

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24659
Rebased-From: 9809db3

85f85c7e5f

build: Fix Boost.Process detection on macOS arm64

Could be tested as follows:
```
% brew install boost@1.76
% ./autogen.sh
% ./configure --with-boost='/opt/homebrew/opt/boost@1.76'
```

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24521
Rebased-From: 1d4157a

26c2f23f36

build: Fix Boost.Process test for Boost 1.78

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24523
Rebased-From: 532c64a

ded10fe3ea

util: Add inotify_rm_watch to syscall sandbox (AllowFileSystem)

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24690
Rebased-From: f05a4cd

174af33d5d

in doc/README.md:76 in c5cc0e5865 outdated

72@@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ The Bitcoin repo's [root README](/README.md) contains relevant information on th
73 - [Assets Attribution](assets-attribution.md)
74 - [Assumeutxo design](assumeutxo.md)
75 - [bitcoin.conf Configuration File](bitcoin-conf.md)
76+- [CJDNS Support](cjdns.md)

hebasto commented at 7:11 am on March 31, 2022:

This link is dead.

jonatack commented at 7:45 am on March 31, 2022:

Good catch. The commit adding that file is missing.

jonatack commented at 8:45 am on March 31, 2022:

Thanks! Fixed the link at https://github.com/jonatack/bitcoin/blob/23.x-onlynet-help-and-doc-improvements/doc/README.md#miscellaneous by adding missing commits from #24555 and checked the other backports.

jonatack force-pushed on Mar 31, 2022

jonatack commented at 8:51 am on March 31, 2022: member

Addressed @hebasto’s catch, added #24521 per #24512 (review), and updated the PR description. #24710 looks RFM and would be good to add.

laanwj commented at 10:20 am on March 31, 2022: member

List-of-commits ACK 174af33d5d78cfe341b688f5393d9acc8c4aaf6b, I think we should merge this and move forward with rc3..

hebasto commented at 10:37 am on March 31, 2022: member

Why #24710 is listed among backported PRs?

hebasto approved

hebasto commented at 10:48 am on March 31, 2022: member

ACK 174af33d5d78cfe341b688f5393d9acc8c4aaf6b

I’ve backported all commits locally without any conflicts, and got zero diff with this PR branch.

I think we should merge this and move forward with rc3.

Agree.

fanquake commented at 11:18 am on March 31, 2022: member

I think we should merge this and move forward with rc3..

Yes. The list of commits has blown up, and this has dragged on long enough. I don’t think there’s a reason to wait for other documentation changes.

Why #24710 is listed among backported PRs?

Not sure. I’ve removed it.

fanquake merged this on Mar 31, 2022

fanquake closed this on Mar 31, 2022

jonatack deleted the branch on Mar 31, 2022

jonatack commented at 12:05 pm on March 31, 2022: member

Why #24710 is listed among backported PRs?

#24512 (comment) – I thought it would make it in. No worries.

MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 3dfbc1b00f on Mar 31, 2022

MarcoFalke referenced this in commit e502120209 on Mar 31, 2022

DrahtBot locked this on Jun 24, 2023

23.x backports #24512