Nuke adjusted time from validation (attempt 2)

dergoegge commented at 1:26 pm on November 28, 2023: member

This picks up parts of #25908.

The use of adjusted time is removed from validation code while the warning to users if their clock is out of sync with the rest of the network remains.

DrahtBot commented at 1:27 pm on November 28, 2023: contributor

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Code Coverage

For detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	naumenkogs, maflcko, stickies-v, achow101
Concept ACK	ajtowns, RandyMcMillan, fanquake, Pttn, ariard, TheCharlatan, sr-gi

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#29236 (log: Nuke error(…) by maflcko)
#28339 (validation: improve performance of CheckBlockIndex by mzumsande)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

dergoegge marked this as a draft on Nov 28, 2023

dergoegge force-pushed on Nov 28, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 28, 2023

dergoegge force-pushed on Nov 28, 2023

dergoegge marked this as ready for review on Nov 28, 2023

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 28, 2023

dergoegge commented at 10:58 am on November 29, 2023: member

@ajtowns @darosior @fanquake @maflcko @naumenkogs You all were interested in the previous PR. Would appreciate your review.

in src/net_processing.h:92 in cab1cf9c13 outdated

87@@ -84,6 +88,9 @@ class PeerManager : public CValidationInterface, public NetEventsInterface
88     /** Get statistics from node state */
89     virtual bool GetNodeStateStats(NodeId nodeid, CNodeStateStats& stats) const = 0;
90 
91+    /** Get stats from peer manager. */
92+    virtual PeerManagerStats GetStats() const = 0;

ajtowns commented at 11:13 am on November 29, 2023:

If you’re building a function that collects this info, maybe call it GetInfo() and combine it with IgnoresIncomingTxs() ?

dergoegge commented at 1:29 pm on November 29, 2023:

Good idea, done!

in src/rpc/net.cpp:676 in aec6b138ce outdated

672@@ -674,7 +673,7 @@ static RPCHelpMan getnetworkinfo()
673     if (node.peerman) {
674         obj.pushKV("localrelay", !node.peerman->IgnoresIncomingTxs());
675     }
676-    obj.pushKV("timeoffset",    GetTimeOffset());
677+    obj.pushKV("timeoffset", node.peerman->GetStats().median_outbound_time_offset);

ajtowns commented at 11:14 am on November 29, 2023:

Should be conditional on node.peerman being valid, see the previous line.

in src/net_processing.cpp:3613 in 71d6107665 outdated

3600@@ -3567,6 +3601,8 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
3601             // Don't use timedata samples from inbound peers to make it
3602             // harder for others to tamper with our adjusted time.
3603             AddTimeData(pfrom.addr, peer->m_time_offset);
3604+
3605+            m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(peer->m_time_offset);

ajtowns commented at 11:22 am on November 29, 2023:

Having a rolling set of 10 time offsets from every outbound connection we make (full outbounds, block-relay-only, extra block-relay-only, feelers?) seems somewhat risky: at present, you’ll get odd behaviour if a high-proportion of the first 100 outbound peers you connect to have a different time; with this change, you’ll get a warning if the last 10 peers you randomly connect to have a dodgy view of the time?

Maybe consider making this conditional on IsManualOrFullOutboundConn() instead; that way it only updates rarely for things we’re really trying to connect to, and isn’t mostly made up of random peers we’re briefly sampling?

dergoegge commented at 1:30 pm on November 29, 2023:

Maybe consider making this conditional on IsManualOrFullOutboundConn()

Done

in src/net_processing.cpp:3620 in 786c562b07 outdated

3612@@ -3611,6 +3613,12 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
3613             AddTimeData(pfrom.addr, peer->m_time_offset);
3614 
3615             m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(peer->m_time_offset);
3616+
3617+            auto median = m_outbound_time_offsets.Median();
3618+            if (median > TIME_OFFSET_WARN_THRESHOLD.count() ||
3619+                median < -TIME_OFFSET_WARN_THRESHOLD.count()) {
3620+                SetMiscWarning(Untranslated("Please check that your computer's date and time are correct"));

ajtowns commented at 11:27 am on November 29, 2023:

SetMiscWarning seems a poor interface; if there’s two warnings, the latest one overrides the first, and you can’t remove warnings in the event that they resolve themselves. Might be better to do something like SetfLargeWorkInvalidChainFound(bool) ?

in src/net_processing.cpp:179 in 786c562b07 outdated

175@@ -175,6 +176,7 @@ static constexpr double MAX_ADDR_RATE_PER_SECOND{0.1};
176 static constexpr size_t MAX_ADDR_PROCESSING_TOKEN_BUCKET{MAX_ADDR_TO_SEND};
177 /** The compactblocks version we support. See BIP 152. */
178 static constexpr uint64_t CMPCTBLOCKS_VERSION{2};
179+static constexpr std::chrono::seconds TIME_OFFSET_WARN_THRESHOLD{30min};

ajtowns commented at 11:31 am on November 29, 2023:

This is reduced from 70min to 30min, compared to DEFAULT_MAX_TIME_ADJUSTMENT. 70min avoids warning if you’re buggy by an hour due to (you or your peers) getting daylight savings time wrong, which seems like a vaguely plausible thing to continue doing?

in src/init.cpp:531 in aec6b138ce outdated

495@@ -497,7 +496,6 @@ void SetupServerArgs(ArgsManager& argsman)
496     argsman.AddArg("-maxconnections=<n>", strprintf("Maintain at most <n> automatic connections to peers (default: %u). This limit does not apply to connections manually added via -addnode or the addnode RPC, which have a separate limit of %u.", DEFAULT_MAX_PEER_CONNECTIONS, MAX_ADDNODE_CONNECTIONS), ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY, OptionsCategory::CONNECTION);
497     argsman.AddArg("-maxreceivebuffer=<n>", strprintf("Maximum per-connection receive buffer, <n>*1000 bytes (default: %u)", DEFAULT_MAXRECEIVEBUFFER), ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY, OptionsCategory::CONNECTION);
498     argsman.AddArg("-maxsendbuffer=<n>", strprintf("Maximum per-connection memory usage for the send buffer, <n>*1000 bytes (default: %u)", DEFAULT_MAXSENDBUFFER), ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY, OptionsCategory::CONNECTION);
499-    argsman.AddArg("-maxtimeadjustment", strprintf("Maximum allowed median peer time offset adjustment. Local perspective of time may be influenced by outbound peers forward or backward by this amount (default: %u seconds).", DEFAULT_MAX_TIME_ADJUSTMENT), ArgsManager::ALLOW_ANY, OptionsCategory::CONNECTION);

ajtowns commented at 11:32 am on November 29, 2023:

Perhaps swap this option for one that controls how much of a time difference results in a warning? Not sure.

dergoegge commented at 1:34 pm on November 29, 2023:

No strong opinion on this, but it doesn’t seem very useful to me to be able to set that threshold. Happy to add this if someone can name a good reason.

dergoegge commented at 2:52 pm on December 11, 2023:

Kept the setting in the new approach

ajtowns commented at 11:34 am on November 29, 2023: contributor

Concept ACK

dergoegge force-pushed on Nov 29, 2023

RandyMcMillan commented at 3:36 pm on November 29, 2023: contributor

Concept ACK

fanquake commented at 5:21 pm on November 29, 2023: member

Concept ACK

Pttn commented at 10:26 pm on November 29, 2023: contributor

Concept ACK

in src/net_processing.cpp:214 in 122658f95b outdated

209+        AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
210+        std::array<int64_t, N> sorted_copy = WITH_LOCK(m_mutex, return m_offsets);
211+        std::sort(sorted_copy.begin(), sorted_copy.end());
212+
213+        if constexpr (N % 2 == 0) {
214+            return (sorted_copy[N / 2 - 1] + sorted_copy[N / 2]) / 2;

sipa commented at 7:44 pm on November 30, 2023:

Shouldn’t this use min(N, m_index) instead of N?

naumenkogs commented at 9:17 am on December 1, 2023:

122658f95b36b7f940351bd34a89e13831931f18

should we make this addition overflow safe?

dergoegge commented at 11:56 am on December 4, 2023:

The idea is that m_index is always set to the next index in m_offsets that gets written to (so a value out of [0, N)) and we just assume that the initial N samples were 0, which is why the median is immediately computed out of N.

I could change it to always increase m_index instead and add new offsets by doing m_offsets[m_index % N] = new_offset, in which case your suggestion would allow us to compute the median more “accurately” while we haven’t seen N samples yet. I’m not sure though if that is an improvement,. e.g. do we want to issue a warning if only the first outbound connection has a offset larger than our threshold?

dergoegge commented at 11:58 am on December 4, 2023:

Hm yea I guess… I could also just remove support for even Ns from this class.

naumenkogs commented at 8:31 am on December 5, 2023:

do we want to issue a warning if only the first outbound connection has a offset larger than our threshold?

This is the main question I guess. So, with the current code, having 4 peers would never trigger it, right? Because median will always be 0.

naumenkogs commented at 8:32 am on December 5, 2023:

i won’t mind that either, but ideally with an in-function comment.

dergoegge commented at 3:20 pm on December 6, 2023:

So, with the current code, having 4 peers would never trigger it, right? Because median will always be 0.

Yes and this sort of (on accident) mimics how/when we trigger the warning on master at 5 or more samples: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/dde7ac5c704688c8a9af29bd07e5ae8114824ce7/src/timedata.cpp#L77

dergoegge commented at 3:20 pm on December 6, 2023:

Done

naumenkogs commented at 8:58 am on December 7, 2023:

I won’t mind, but this should be commented somewhere above — perhaps where 0 returned is handled.

naumenkogs commented at 9:34 am on December 1, 2023: member

Concept ACK

in src/net_processing.cpp:3615 in d283c10c29 outdated

3615+
3616+        if (pfrom.IsManualOrFullOutboundConn()) {
3617+            // Only sample from outbound connections we are really trying to connect to.
3618+            m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(peer->m_time_offset);
3619+
3620+            auto median = m_outbound_time_offsets.Median();

ariard commented at 2:23 am on December 4, 2023:

I think one advance in term of robustness of this local time monitoring mechanism could be to add feeler ’s time offset (ConnectionType::FEELER) to reserved slots in the index (e.g +3 on the 10 full-outbound connections). Those peers connections are already triggered at regular interval, which is not necessarily the case of outbound peer topology if the peers are stable and performant.

I guess a NTP-attacker could silently time shift the local clock of a victim, without this warning logic ever triggering if no new outbound or manual connections are ever opened during the exploitation.

dergoegge commented at 3:23 pm on December 6, 2023:

I see your point but I think I would like to keep discussion about improving the warning condition to a future PR. The current adjusted time mechanism has the same flaw and is even worse as it stops sampling entirely after 200 samples.

Maybe we can collect some stats on how often outbound connections rotate and how many samples from which connections are actually useful to inform such a change.

I will add the release note.

naumenkogs commented at 9:26 am on December 7, 2023:

stops sampling entirely after 200 samples

perhaps record this bug in the commit message, might be useful in the future?

dergoegge commented at 2:54 pm on December 11, 2023:

This is documented in the current code. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/40bc501bf462e1b38679f728336f18f08ee251ca/src/timedata.cpp#L60-L76

ariard commented at 2:27 am on December 4, 2023: member

Concept ACK

I would recommend to add an explicit release note, inciting nodes operators to monitor this new warning, especially if they’re running time-sensitive apps. Exploiting NTP to target bitcoin has been suggested both in NTP security literature and the time-dilation paper (I’ve never seen or heard any in the wild, contrary to some BGP attacks in other cryptos though I believe this is fairly practical). E.g

 0new local clock monitoring 
 1==========================
 2
 3The notion of adjusted time relying on the median of other network nodes clocks is removed.
 4Instead, a rolling sample of the time offset from local clock of each of the last 10 outbound
 5peers is maintained and the median computed. If the yielding result is more or less than
 670 min, a node warning is issued.
 7
 8This warning can be consumed by a call to `getblockchaininfo`. If the node is backing an
 9application or protocol with stringent time-sensitive requirements and high funds at stake
10(e.g a lightning or time-enabled wallet)  it is recommended to periodically run a monitoring
11job and in presence of warning automatically notify the operator.

dergoegge force-pushed on Dec 6, 2023

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Dec 6, 2023

in src/net_processing.cpp:205 in 6c65f61b62 outdated

200+    void Add(int64_t offset) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
201+    {
202+        AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
203+        LOCK(m_mutex);
204+        m_offsets[m_index] = offset;
205+        m_index = (1 + m_index) % N;

naumenkogs commented at 9:04 am on December 7, 2023:

6c65f61b625212e128e5db52cbd80a3b57b1450b

nit: your code assumes that N is less than the capacity of size_t, otherwise this addition can overflow. You might consider adding a static assert for that too, just in case someone in the future decides to use TimeOffsets<bazillion>

in src/net_processing.cpp:3553 in 569a8797cc outdated

3602@@ -3604,11 +3603,6 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
3603                   remoteAddr, (mapped_as ? strprintf(", mapped_as=%d", mapped_as) : ""));
3604 
3605         peer->m_time_offset = nTime - GetTime();
3606-        if (!pfrom.IsInboundConn()) {

naumenkogs commented at 9:18 am on December 7, 2023:

After your changes, we won’t consider BLOCK_RELAY, FEELER, ADDR_FETCH anymore, right?

dergoegge commented at 2:54 pm on December 11, 2023:

With the new approach this is kept as is on master

in src/warnings.cpp:35 in b7364bc832 outdated

28@@ -28,6 +29,12 @@ void SetfLargeWorkInvalidChainFound(bool flag)
29     fLargeWorkInvalidChainFound = flag;
30 }
31 
32+void SetMedianTimeOffsetWarning()
33+{
34+    LOCK(g_warnings_mutex);
35+    g_timeoffset_warning = true;

naumenkogs commented at 9:24 am on December 7, 2023:

Why don’t you implement going out of this warning?

dergoegge commented at 2:54 pm on December 11, 2023:

This wasn’t implemented before either. This can be improved in a follow up.

dergoegge force-pushed on Dec 11, 2023

dergoegge commented at 2:47 pm on December 11, 2023: member

Changed the approach.

This now still deletes all the adjusted time code and removes it from consensus code but keeps the warning condition for a large median time offset as it is on master. Improvements to the warning can be done in a follow up.

This should now be a very straight forward review, since we don’t need to discuss a new warning mechanism.

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Dec 11, 2023

naumenkogs commented at 8:55 am on December 12, 2023: member

Looking at the diff between the two versions, I see these changes:

which peers are taken into account (FEELER, ADDRFETCH, BLOCKRELAY are also considered)
the 199-bug is brought back
fixed addition overflow; an alternative would divide each element by 2 and then add without overflow risk, it saves us the sloppiness int64_max/2; but i don’t care that much)

Not sure i see keeps warning condition for a large median time offset as it is on master.

Generally, while I think it’s fine to leave (1) for the latter PR, re-introducing the bug (2) is somewhat unfortunate:

it’s just a bad practice
even if the bug was anything useful before, it won’t be anymore since all we keep is
i actually think the original diff is easier to review than the bug re-introduction :)

(3) should be kept for either version of course.

dergoegge commented at 10:54 am on December 12, 2023: member

Removing adjusted time from consensus is a big win. Having time samples received from peers be involved in consensus checks is not great and not effective against NTP based attacks (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25908#issuecomment-1264632475, #25908 (comment)). The warning itself is not as interesting to me but most of the review on both #25908 and this PR is about the warning and its threshold.

I don’t want changing the warning (small win) to distract from removing adjusted time from consensus (big win).

dergoegge force-pushed on Dec 12, 2023

dergoegge commented at 11:01 am on December 12, 2023: member

an alternative would divide each element by 2 and then add without overflow risk

Done.

glozow added the label P2P on Dec 12, 2023

ariard commented at 9:10 pm on December 12, 2023: member

Removing adjusted time from consensus is a big win. Having time samples received from peers be involved in consensus checks is not great and not effective against NTP based attacks (#25908 (comment), #25908 (comment)). The warning itself is not as interesting to me but most of the review on both #25908 and this PR is about the warning and its threshold.

Currently, we’re adjusting our local clock from the median of the first 199 outbound peers we’re connecting to (only the first 199 due to the oddness bug in AddTimeData()). In case of the occurence of a NTP-based attack (e.g a malicious network delay on traffic between the local system NTP client and its timeservers), this median-adjusted time mechanism can generate a salvatory warning towards the node operators (the "Please check that your computer's date and time are correct!"). However, this mechanism comes as a security benefit only if the attack is active when you start your local bitcoind and until the first 199 outbound peers connection have been sampled (which might last for hours / days, given our only 10 outbound connections slots at the moment). So there is a robustness benefit brought by the current adjusted time mechanism and this is has been one of my main concern brought in #25908.

On the other hand, this mechanism can allow your outbound peers topology to correct your local time (as used for some consensus rules validation in ContextualCheckBlockHeader() ) in the boundaries of -/+ DEFAULT_MAX_TIME_ADJUSTEMENT. This exploit assumes you’re able to corrupt or compromise 100 outbound peers (as it’s a median), which has to be done in considerations of all our hardenings in AddrMan and some low-hashrate capabilities. Those 2 elements in my appreciation present a very high-bar (at least compared to state-of-art practical NTP-based attacks).

As such, I reasonably think maintaining the warning mechanism is valuable at the very least to maintain current robustness of our consensus validation code in face of NTP attacks. This always give the chance of node operators noticing time anomalies from their logs, which is welcome robustness if you’re operating a time-sensitive bitcoin infrastructure imo. I think we should be better to keep a large buffer of sampled outbound peers (e.g in the order of 100 outbound peers as right now) for this current change itself, and fix the oddness bug.

For sure, we can add additional robustness mechanisms in follow-up PRs, e.g “random drop” of sampeld peers time offset to add uncertainty in the eyes of adversaries targeting neutralization of the warning mechanism or including feelers connections in sampled offsets.

Another source of concern, the ajdusted-time is implemented by other full-nodes with at least some other real-world economic traffic. If we’re modifying our consensus-definition of time, and they stay on the old one, this could be source of consensus discrepancies in some edge scenarios. True, this could be a source of concern for non-upraded Bitcoin Core nodes.

From a deployment viewpoint, my recommendation is to notify on the maling list or bitcoin forums other bitcoin full-nodes implementations of this change, and some “rough” deployment timeline in function of Bitcoin Core’s own 27.0 or 28.0 release schedules. I think there is a lesson to be learnt from the old Bitcoin 0.8 LevelDB upgrade.

See, btcd code: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/blob/master/blockchain/mediantime.go#L74

 0// medianTime provides an implementation of the MedianTimeSource interface.
 1// It is limited to maxMedianTimeEntries includes the same buggy behavior as
 2// the time offset mechanism in Bitcoin Core.  This is necessary because it is
 3// used in the consensus code.
 4type medianTime struct {
 5        mtx                sync.Mutex
 6        knownIDs           map[string]struct{}
 7        offsets            []int64
 8        offsetSecs         int64
 9        invalidTimeChecked bool
10}

DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 14, 2023

in src/net_processing.cpp:232 in 8b1c133921 outdated

228+            return sorted_copy[m_index / 2];
229+        } else {
230+            return (sorted_copy[m_index / 2] / 2) +
231+                   (sorted_copy[m_index / 2 - 1] / 2);
232+        }
233+    }

stickies-v commented at 11:31 am on December 18, 2023:

I think the calculation is wrong: the average of the 2 middle elements should be taken in case of an even number of elements.
UB: sorted_copy being an array of size N, I think we’d be sorting uninitialized values if m_index < N?
nit: the scope of the lock can be reduced

Potential fix addressing all 3:

 0diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
 1index 664992dcab..9ade704fe9 100644
 2--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
 3+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
 4@@ -215,20 +215,24 @@ public:
 5     /** Compute and return the median of the collected time offset samples. */
 6     int64_t Median() const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
 7     {
 8-        AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
 9-        LOCK(m_mutex);
10+        std::vector<int64_t> sorted_copy;
11+        {
12+            AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
13+            LOCK(m_mutex);
14 
15-        // Only compute the median from 5 or more samples.
16-        if (m_index < 4) return 0;
17+            // Only compute the median from 5 or more samples.
18+            if (m_index < 4) return 0;
19+
20+            sorted_copy.assign(m_offsets.begin(), m_offsets.begin() + m_index);
21+        }
22 
23-        std::array<int64_t, N> sorted_copy = m_offsets;
24         std::sort(sorted_copy.begin(), sorted_copy.end());
25+        auto mid{sorted_copy.size() / 2};
26 
27-        if (m_index % 2 == 0) {
28-            return sorted_copy[m_index / 2];
29+        if (sorted_copy.size() % 2 == 0) {
30+            return (sorted_copy[mid] / 2) + (sorted_copy[mid - 1] / 2);
31         } else {
32-            return (sorted_copy[m_index / 2] / 2) +
33-                   (sorted_copy[m_index / 2 - 1] / 2);
34+            return sorted_copy[mid];
35         }
36     }
37 };

dergoegge commented at 12:26 pm on December 18, 2023:

I think the calculation is wrong: the average of the 2 middle elements should be taken in case of an even number of elements.

yes🤦

UB: sorted_copy being an array of size N, I think we’d be sorting uninitialized values if m_index < N?

No, m_offsets is not uninitialized

stickies-v commented at 1:32 pm on December 18, 2023:

No, m_offsets is not uninitialized

The array is initialized, ~but the items are not~, and afaik int64_t doesn’t have a default constructor?

dergoegge commented at 1:35 pm on December 18, 2023:

https://godbolt.org/z/5PKET7E39

stickies-v commented at 1:49 pm on December 18, 2023:

Ah cool, didn’t know, thanks. Still, having default (0-)values in sorted_copy seems like it would lead to an incorrect median calculation?

in src/net_processing.cpp:218 in 8b1c133921 outdated

213+    }
214+
215+    /** Compute and return the median of the collected time offset samples. */
216+    int64_t Median() const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
217+    {
218+        AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);

stickies-v commented at 11:39 am on December 18, 2023:

nit: “AssertLockNotHeld() can be omitted if LOCK() is called unconditionally after it because LOCK() does the same check as AssertLockNotHeld() internally, for non-recursive mutexes”

in src/rpc/net.cpp:674 in 8b1c133921 outdated

670@@ -672,9 +671,10 @@ static RPCHelpMan getnetworkinfo()
671         obj.pushKV("localservicesnames", GetServicesNames(services));
672     }
673     if (node.peerman) {
674-        obj.pushKV("localrelay", !node.peerman->IgnoresIncomingTxs());
675+        auto peerman_info{node.peerman->GetInfo()};

stickies-v commented at 11:48 am on December 18, 2023:

const nit

0        const auto peerman_info{node.peerman->GetInfo()};

in src/net_processing.cpp:197 in 8b1c133921 outdated

191+private:
192+    // Historic maximum number of time offsets we include in our median.
193+    static constexpr size_t N{199};
194+
195+    mutable Mutex m_mutex;
196+    std::array<int64_t, N> m_offsets GUARDED_BY(m_mutex){};

stickies-v commented at 12:07 pm on December 18, 2023:

Wdyt about making the offsets typesafe with std::chrono::seconds?

 0diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
 1index 664992dcab..4a7243b82f 100644
 2--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
 3+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
 4@@ -193,12 +193,12 @@ private:
 5     static constexpr size_t N{199};
 6 
 7     mutable Mutex m_mutex;
 8-    std::array<int64_t, N> m_offsets GUARDED_BY(m_mutex){};
 9+    std::array<std::chrono::seconds, N> m_offsets GUARDED_BY(m_mutex){};
10     size_t m_index GUARDED_BY(m_mutex){0};
11 
12 public:
13     /** Add a new time offset sample. */
14-    void Add(int64_t offset) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
15+    void Add(std::chrono::seconds offset) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
16     {
17         AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
18         LOCK(m_mutex);
19@@ -213,15 +213,15 @@ public:
20     }
21 
22     /** Compute and return the median of the collected time offset samples. */
23-    int64_t Median() const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
24+    std::chrono::seconds Median() const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
25     {
26         AssertLockNotHeld(m_mutex);
27         LOCK(m_mutex);
28 
29         // Only compute the median from 5 or more samples.
30-        if (m_index < 4) return 0;
31+        if (m_index < 4) return std::chrono::seconds{0};
32 
33-        std::array<int64_t, N> sorted_copy = m_offsets;
34+        std::array<std::chrono::seconds, N> sorted_copy = m_offsets;
35         std::sort(sorted_copy.begin(), sorted_copy.end());
36 
37         if (m_index % 2 == 0) {
38@@ -3621,11 +3621,11 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
39 
40         peer->m_time_offset = nTime - GetTime();
41         if (!pfrom.IsInboundConn()) {
42-            m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(peer->m_time_offset);
43+            m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(std::chrono::seconds{peer->m_time_offset});
44 
45             auto median = m_outbound_time_offsets.Median();
46-            if (median > m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count() ||
47-                median < -m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count()) {
48+            if (median > m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold ||
49+                median < -m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold) {
50                 SetMedianTimeOffsetWarning();
51             }
52         }
53diff --git a/src/net_processing.h b/src/net_processing.h
54index 0fec728ebb..4fb280ed16 100644
55--- a/src/net_processing.h
56+++ b/src/net_processing.h
57@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct CNodeStateStats {
58 };
59 
60 struct PeerManagerInfo {
61-    int64_t median_outbound_time_offset{0};
62+    std::chrono::seconds median_outbound_time_offset{0};
63     bool ignores_incoming_txs{false};
64 };
65 
66diff --git a/src/rpc/net.cpp b/src/rpc/net.cpp
67index ea53a974f1..780f1383ed 100644
68--- a/src/rpc/net.cpp
69+++ b/src/rpc/net.cpp
70@@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ static RPCHelpMan getnetworkinfo()
71     if (node.peerman) {
72         auto peerman_info{node.peerman->GetInfo()};
73         obj.pushKV("localrelay", !peerman_info.ignores_incoming_txs);
74-        obj.pushKV("timeoffset", peerman_info.median_outbound_time_offset);
75+        obj.pushKV("timeoffset", peerman_info.median_outbound_time_offset.count());
76     }
77     if (node.connman) {
78         obj.pushKV("networkactive", node.connman->GetNetworkActive());

dergoegge commented at 12:27 pm on December 18, 2023:

Good idea, but I’d prefer to leave that for a follow up

stickies-v commented at 1:33 pm on December 18, 2023:

Care to elaborate why? Since this is newly introduced code, seems sensible to do it right away?

stickies-v commented at 12:11 pm on December 18, 2023: contributor

Looks like a nice improvement, but still improving my understanding so comments are limited to code review now, and not the concept. It would be helpful if at least some of the commits had a bit more rationale in the description.

dergoegge force-pushed on Dec 18, 2023

in src/net_processing.cpp:3619 in 87c577e974 outdated

3628+
3629+            auto median = m_outbound_time_offsets.Median();
3630+            if (median > m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count() ||
3631+                median < -m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count()) {
3632+                SetMedianTimeOffsetWarning();
3633+            }

stickies-v commented at 11:59 pm on December 20, 2023:

This does seem to change warning behaviour, in that:

it isn’t logged anymore
there’s no more pop-up message for bitcoin-qt

Is that intentional?

in src/net_processing.cpp:221 in dde4e1c6b0 outdated

215+    int64_t Median() const EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!m_mutex)
216+    {
217+        LOCK(m_mutex);
218+
219+        // Only compute the median from 5 or more samples.
220+        if (m_index < 4) return 0;

naumenkogs commented at 8:01 am on December 21, 2023:

dde4e1c6b0cbb49b84e75b9d0d1a92161ba5a499 if m_index is 4, there are 4 samples but we will still compute the median, so the comment is inaccurate.

sr-gi commented at 6:41 pm on January 2, 2024:

In order to be consistent with how the code used to be what needs updating is the code and not the comment, doesn’t it? Otherwise, we will be computing the median as low as with 4 elements when we used to need 5 before.

I don’t know what the motivation to require 5 data points previously was (why not 4 or 3?), but my impression by reading the comments in this PR is that we are trying no to change anyting with respect to how the median is computed and leave that for a followup

in src/net_processing.h:95 in 83c790e3ab outdated

87@@ -84,6 +88,9 @@ class PeerManager : public CValidationInterface, public NetEventsInterface
88     /** Get statistics from node state */
89     virtual bool GetNodeStateStats(NodeId nodeid, CNodeStateStats& stats) const = 0;
90 
91+    /** Get peer manager info. */

naumenkogs commented at 8:03 am on December 21, 2023:

83c790e3abd7d2434894fb964c21796f1d024e9b

the comment could be more useful, rephrasing the meaning of this info.

naumenkogs commented at 8:17 am on December 21, 2023: member

I agree with @ariard above we don’t want a chain split after relaxing the consensus rule, perhaps this is worthy a discussion on the ML or irc meeting. I think it’s safe due to the buggy protection and whatnot, but I’d bring this up for others.

Otherwise the code looks good.

DrahtBot requested review from ariard on Dec 21, 2023

DrahtBot requested review from fanquake on Dec 21, 2023

DrahtBot requested review from ajtowns on Dec 21, 2023

in src/net_processing.cpp:208 in 87c577e974 outdated

202+    {
203+        LOCK(m_mutex);
204+
205+        // Stop sampling after N samples.
206+        // TODO This maintains a historic bug of adjusted time and could be
207+        // changed in the future.

stickies-v commented at 4:36 pm on December 21, 2023:

nit: Especially since there’s no git log for this new code, this comment is pretty difficult to understand for future readers. Would suggest adding a link to e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/93659379bdedc29a87fe351ba2950a2c976aebd9 for context

in src/net_processing.cpp:3617 in 87c577e974 outdated

3626-            AddTimeData(pfrom.addr, nTimeOffset);
3627+            m_outbound_time_offsets.Add(peer->m_time_offset);
3628+
3629+            auto median = m_outbound_time_offsets.Median();
3630+            if (median > m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count() ||
3631+                median < -m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count()) {

stickies-v commented at 5:03 pm on December 21, 2023:

0            if (std::abs(median) > m_opts.time_offset_warn_threshold.count()) {

dergoegge commented at 6:02 pm on December 23, 2023:

This wouldn’t trigger the warning if the median is equal to std::numeric_limits<int64_t>::min()

sr-gi commented at 6:54 pm on January 2, 2024:

Came for this. 😕 indeed

stickies-v commented at 5:39 pm on December 21, 2023: contributor

Concept ACK, and code LGTM 87c577e9742d7154826c755a7fe320f34fd54c81 (but needs rebase).

It is unfortunate that this is not a strict security improvement (by increasing the dependency on the local system clock, which can also be tampered with), but not having consensus rely on a majority of arbitrary peers (phrased very well here) is a worthwhile improvement and in my view probably safer. A wrong system clock should be pretty visible (and cause other issues) anyway, and hardening the system (clock) is not really a task for Core.

That said, I think having a good warning system is helpful, if indeed manipulating a user’s system clock is feasible (which I’m not an expert on), but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise on this.

perhaps this is worthy a discussion on the ML or irc meeting.

I agree.

My understanding of what nuking network-adjusted time affects:

block validity and the timestamp of newly created block (template)s
our assessment of whether we’re close to the chaintip (via PeerManagerImpl::CanDirectFetch())
HeadersSyncState::m_max_commitments which represents the maximum number of headers we accept from a peer

dergoegge force-pushed on Jan 2, 2024

dergoegge commented at 4:33 pm on January 2, 2024: member

Only rebased for now

DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Jan 2, 2024

in src/net_processing.cpp:3555 in 1d226ae1f9 outdated

3607@@ -3548,12 +3608,15 @@ void PeerManagerImpl::ProcessMessage(CNode& pfrom, const std::string& msg_type,
3608                   peer->m_starting_height, addrMe.ToStringAddrPort(), fRelay, pfrom.GetId(),
3609                   remoteAddr, (mapped_as ? strprintf(", mapped_as=%d", mapped_as) : ""));
3610 
3611-        int64_t nTimeOffset = nTime - GetTime();
3612-        pfrom.nTimeOffset = nTimeOffset;
3613+        peer->m_time_offset = nTime - GetTime();
3614         if (!pfrom.IsInboundConn()) {
3615-            // Don't use timedata samples from inbound peers to make it
3616-            // harder for others to tamper with our adjusted time.

sr-gi commented at 7:11 pm on January 2, 2024:

I think a version of this comment may still be relevant to motivate why we only sample outbound nodes

in src/net_processing.cpp:227 in d079ffc9b8 outdated

222+
223+        std::array<int64_t, N> sorted_copy = m_offsets;
224+        std::sort(sorted_copy.begin(), sorted_copy.begin() + m_index);
225+
226+        if (m_index % 2 == 0) {
227+            return (sorted_copy[m_index / 2] / 2) +

mzumsande commented at 7:25 pm on January 2, 2024:

I think the the addition should be done before the division to handle rounding effects better, like it’s done in timedata. If the two relevant offsets are, for example, 3 and 5, the median with this code would be 3.

stickies-v commented at 7:51 pm on January 2, 2024:

The current approach addresses overflow concerns as per #28956 (review)

mzumsande commented at 8:10 pm on January 2, 2024:

ok, I see. Still, having a function that returns 3 as the median of {3,5} and 5 as the median of {4,6} seems inconsistent, couldn’t we explicitly check and handle overflows instead?

sr-gi commented at 8:28 pm on January 2, 2024:

I was going to suggest doing sorted_copy[m_index / 2] + sorted_copy[m_index / 2 - 1]) / 2)) before seeing this comment since the current approach feels a bit strange. If we keep this I’d say at least add a comment pointing out this is to prevent overflow

stickies-v commented at 1:31 pm on January 3, 2024:

We already assume the median can be rounded down, so I don’t think extra rounding changes any assumptions, and therefore I wouldn’t overcomplicate things, it’s just not worth it imo. I’d be okay with casting to a double first, but it’s not strictly better as we’re trading off precision at the higher ranges (which I also don’t think is important at all).

0        if (m_index % 2 == 0) {
1            return (0.5 * sorted_copy[m_index / 2]) +
2                   (0.5 * sorted_copy[m_index / 2 - 1]);
3        }

mzumsande commented at 3:28 pm on January 3, 2024:

Just a code comment would be fine too. I agree that the rounding doesn’t matter at all in this context (and it’d also be fine not to calculate the mean in the even case at all), but code tends to get copied and reused.

in src/net_processing.h:50 in 1d226ae1f9 outdated

41@@ -41,6 +42,12 @@ struct CNodeStateStats {
42     bool m_addr_relay_enabled{false};
43     ServiceFlags their_services;
44     int64_t presync_height{-1};
45+    int64_t time_offset{0};
46+};
47+
48+struct PeerManagerInfo {
49+    int64_t median_outbound_time_offset{0};
50+    bool ignores_incoming_txs{false};

sr-gi commented at 7:30 pm on January 2, 2024:

Out of curiosity: are you grouping these two so you can query them together, given you’ll need both of them in getnetworkinfo if peerman is defined?

TheCharlatan commented at 3:36 pm on January 3, 2024: contributor

Concept ACK

sr-gi commented at 4:27 pm on January 3, 2024: member

Concept ACK

Remove GetAdjustedTime ff9039f6ea

in src/validation.cpp:2188 in 1d226ae1f9 outdated

2184@@ -2185,10 +2185,6 @@ bool Chainstate::ConnectBlock(const CBlock& block, BlockValidationState& state,
2185     // upgrade from one software version to the next after a consensus rule
2186     // change is potentially tricky and issue-specific (see NeedsRedownload()
2187     // for one approach that was used for BIP 141 deployment).
2188-    // Also, currently the rule against blocks more than 2 hours in the future

sipa commented at 6:21 pm on January 3, 2024:

I think this comment should stay, because NodeClock isn’t guaranteed to be monotonic?

DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jan 16, 2024

dergoegge force-pushed on Jan 22, 2024

dergoegge renamed this:
~~Nuke adjusted time (attempt 2)~~
Nuke adjusted time from validation (attempt 2)
on Jan 22, 2024

dergoegge commented at 3:13 pm on January 22, 2024: member

This PR now only removes adjusted time from validation code while keeping all the code for the warning in place as is. A follow-up can change the warning (as it has many problems) but this PR will focus on the removal of adjusted time from consensus.

Re-implementing the same warning seemed unnecessary (even if it was less code) and prone to bugs.

in src/validation.cpp:3808 in ff9039f6ea

3804@@ -3805,7 +3805,7 @@ static bool ContextualCheckBlockHeader(const CBlockHeader& block, BlockValidatio
3805         return state.Invalid(BlockValidationResult::BLOCK_INVALID_HEADER, "time-too-old", "block's timestamp is too early");
3806 
3807     // Check timestamp
3808-    if (block.Time() > now + std::chrono::seconds{MAX_FUTURE_BLOCK_TIME}) {
3809+    if (block.Time() > NodeClock::now() + std::chrono::seconds{MAX_FUTURE_BLOCK_TIME}) {

stickies-v commented at 12:14 pm on January 24, 2024:

This latest force-push seems to have accidentally reverted the necessary doc change in chain.h:

 0diff --git a/src/chain.h b/src/chain.h
 1index f9121fb861..ab58fad5b9 100644
 2--- a/src/chain.h
 3+++ b/src/chain.h
 4@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 5 
 6 /**
 7  * Maximum amount of time that a block timestamp is allowed to exceed the
 8- * current network-adjusted time before the block will be accepted.
 9+ * current time before the block will be accepted.
10  */
11 static constexpr int64_t MAX_FUTURE_BLOCK_TIME = 2 * 60 * 60;
12

stickies-v commented at 1:58 pm on January 24, 2024: contributor

Approach ACK

I think keeping this diff small and focusing on just the (non-warning) functional behaviour change is the best approach to reduce friction to get more high quality feedback on whether this is indeed a safety improvement (I lean towards yes). Code LGTM ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2, but I think this warrants a release note since we are changing some security assumptions, making users aware of that seems like the way to go imo.

nit: latest force push regressed a couple of includes:

 0diff --git a/src/headerssync.cpp b/src/headerssync.cpp
 1index e1dfe10483..e14de004f5 100644
 2--- a/src/headerssync.cpp
 3+++ b/src/headerssync.cpp
 4@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 5 #include <headerssync.h>
 6 #include <logging.h>
 7 #include <pow.h>
 8-#include <timedata.h>
 9 #include <util/check.h>
10+#include <util/time.h>
11 #include <util/vector.h>
12 
13 // The two constants below are computed using the simulation script in
14diff --git a/src/net_processing.cpp b/src/net_processing.cpp
15index b426b889cf..8c43377875 100644
16--- a/src/net_processing.cpp
17+++ b/src/net_processing.cpp
18@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
19 #include <txrequest.h>
20 #include <util/check.h>
21 #include <util/strencodings.h>
22+#include <util/time.h>
23 #include <util/trace.h>
24 #include <validation.h>
25 
26diff --git a/src/node/miner.cpp b/src/node/miner.cpp
27index 89498fb976..87f40e993f 100644
28--- a/src/node/miner.cpp
29+++ b/src/node/miner.cpp
30@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@
31 #include <policy/policy.h>
32 #include <pow.h>
33 #include <primitives/transaction.h>
34-#include <timedata.h>
35 #include <util/moneystr.h>
36+#include <util/time.h>
37 #include <validation.h>
38 
39 #include <algorithm>
40diff --git a/src/rpc/mining.cpp b/src/rpc/mining.cpp
41index 069a451089..929247d32b 100644
42--- a/src/rpc/mining.cpp
43+++ b/src/rpc/mining.cpp
44@@ -27,11 +27,11 @@
45 #include <script/descriptor.h>
46 #include <script/script.h>
47 #include <script/signingprovider.h>
48-#include <timedata.h>
49 #include <txmempool.h>
50 #include <univalue.h>
51 #include <util/strencodings.h>
52 #include <util/string.h>
53+#include <util/time.h>
54 #include <util/translation.h>
55 #include <validation.h>
56 #include <validationinterface.h>
57diff --git a/src/timedata.h b/src/timedata.h
58index 90428d071c..17e7539700 100644
59--- a/src/timedata.h
60+++ b/src/timedata.h
61@@ -5,8 +5,6 @@
62 #ifndef BITCOIN_TIMEDATA_H
63 #define BITCOIN_TIMEDATA_H
64 
65-#include <util/time.h>
66-
67 #include <algorithm>
68 #include <cassert>
69 #include <chrono>

sr-gi commented at 8:47 pm on January 26, 2024: member

This PR now only removes adjusted time from validation code while keeping all the code for the warning in place as is. A follow-up can change the warning (as it has many problems) but this PR will focus on the removal of adjusted time from consensus.

Re-implementing the same warning seemed unnecessary (even if it was less code) and prone to bugs.

Does this mean that the adjusted time is now being collected and used exclusively to raise the warning?

stickies-v commented at 9:02 pm on January 26, 2024: contributor

Does this mean that the adjusted time is now being collected and used exclusively to raise the warning?

This was the case before the force-push, too. In this current approach, the diff is much smaller so review can focus more on whether we’re okay removing network-adjusted time, instead of on the adjusted time calculation refactoring.

DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jan 27, 2024

naumenkogs commented at 9:46 am on January 29, 2024: member

ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2

After a few attempts, I haven’t found a way to trigger a consensus fork through adjusted time. It’s not like this could “infect” half of the network (legacy) through block propagation or something. Because of that, if there was/is a legacy way to exploit it (say an overflow in nTimeOffset calculation), this new code won’t make it worse.

DrahtBot requested review from stickies-v on Jan 29, 2024

DrahtBot requested review from TheCharlatan on Jan 29, 2024

DrahtBot requested review from sr-gi on Jan 29, 2024

maflcko approved

maflcko commented at 1:17 pm on January 29, 2024: member

lgtm ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2 🤽

Signature:

0untrusted comment: signature from minisign secret key on empty file; verify via: minisign -Vm "${path_to_any_empty_file}" -P RWTRmVTMeKV5noAMqVlsMugDDCyyTSbA3Re5AkUrhvLVln0tSaFWglOw -x "${path_to_this_whole_four_line_signature_blob}"
1RUTRmVTMeKV5npGrKx1nqXCw5zeVHdtdYURB/KlyA/LMFgpNCs+SkW9a8N95d+U4AP1RJMi+krxU1A3Yux4bpwZNLvVBKy0wLgM=
2trusted comment: lgtm ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2 🤽
3hjCKZbc2j48mFkBbdMp6XYwvC+JpHi9gtElrJyy4RJVJjbMvsAntWQAHbs4leVk6OCxxLaX5X9PRIWR3wRQ/DA==

stickies-v approved

stickies-v commented at 6:13 pm on January 30, 2024: contributor

ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2

I would prefer the commit message to contain a rationale for the change, though. It’s currently empty.

I now believe that the network-adjusted time implementation in master does not offer any security guarantees against an attacker trying to get a node out of consensus. The existing NTP vulnerabilities (which seem to be very real, even if currently apparently not exploited too often) can just as well be used by an attacker when network-adjusted time is used, given that we limit the network adjustment to 70 minutes. As such, this PR does indeed seem like a strong improvement to me.

Ensuring an accurate clock is a system responsibility, and should not be a Bitcoin Core concern. Removing this logic simplifies the code, and removes the assumption that we need a majority of honest outbound nodes. Moreover, it seems trivial to implement an external daemon that monitors Bitcoin network time and e.g. adjusts the local clock or shuts down Bitcoin Core when a large offset is detected, for users that wish to harden their system this way.

achow101 commented at 8:48 pm on January 31, 2024: member

ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2

achow101 merged this on Jan 31, 2024

achow101 closed this on Jan 31, 2024

TheCharlatan commented at 8:59 pm on January 31, 2024: contributor

ACK ff9039f6ea876bab2c40a06a93e0dd087f445fa2

ariard commented at 11:12 pm on February 8, 2024: member

After a few attempts, I haven’t found a way to trigger a consensus fork through adjusted time.

Unclear what has been tested actually (e.g setting sampled time of peers in the past and playing with blocks timestamps). That said I think it’s a very edge scenario, and most susceptible to affect non-upgraded things like btcd.

I now believe that the network-adjusted time implementation in master does not offer any security guarantees against an attacker trying to get a node out of consensus. The existing NTP vulnerabilities (which seem to be very real, even if currently apparently not exploited too often) can just as well be used by an attacker when network-adjusted time is used, given that we limit the network adjustment to 70 minutes.

NTP has its own data / control plane. Our peers connections going through TCP. You might compromise NTP stack but not TCP and vice-versa.

Ensuring an accurate clock is a system responsibility, and should not be a Bitcoin Core concern

With argument of that kind we can remove assumevalid / assumeutxo and say perf issues poor host not core concern. More we’re able to compensate weakness from network infrastructure level, better core node ecosystem stronger.

Moreover, it seems trivial to implement an external daemon that monitors Bitcoin network time and e.g. adjusts the local clock or shuts down Bitcoin Core when a large offset is detected, for users that wish to harden their system this way.

I’ll let as an exercise to the reader to define what should be the authoritative source of time of this external monitoring daemon :) My belief we should conserve a a warning system based on other peers nversion announcements. @dergoegge I think it can be good if you notify btcd and other validation software carrying a minimum of economic traffic of this change, at least to avoid future issues like the bip68 consensus discrepancy you found recently.

maflcko commented at 8:37 am on February 9, 2024: member

My belief we should conserve a a warning system based on other peers nversion announcements.

Yes, this is exactly what this pull request did. See also the description, which said: “while the warning to users if their clock is out of sync with the rest of the network remains.”

ariard commented at 0:26 am on February 12, 2024: member

Yes, this is exactly what this pull request did. See also the description, which said: “while the warning to users if their clock is out of sync with the rest of the network remains.”

That I know. It was more related to using an external daemon and naively using the same NTP source than your Bitcoin Core instance. There is no such thing as Bitcoin network time, just a sampling of peers nversion time. Yes it works if this external daemon consumes Core warning messages and takes corrective actions on this. And even that the correction frequency have to be weighted carefully (are you scaling the correction frequency on internal clock itself or received peers msgs ?)

FYI, some NTP attacks were actually on targeting NTP pool monitoring infrastructure, see this paper.

achow101 referenced this in commit 0c3a3c9394 on Apr 30, 2024

darosior commented at 6:06 pm on July 27, 2024: member

For future reference, related: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2024/07/03/disclose-timestamp-overflow.

Nuke adjusted time from validation (attempt 2) #28956

Code Coverage

Reviews

Conflicts