< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #19649: Restore test case for p2p transaction blinding (master...p2p_segwit_reject) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19649
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof reopened pull request #14582: wallet: always do avoid partial spends if fees are within a specified range (master...181026-try-avoidpartialspends) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14582
< jnewbery> wumpus MarcoFalke fanquake: I think #18991 may be ready for merge. It's had a ton of review and has three ACKs on the most recent branch (and a bunch more ACKs/concept ACKs on previous branches)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18991 | Cache responses to GETADDR to prevent topology leaks by naumenkogs · Pull Request #18991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] S3RK opened pull request #19651: wallet: allow import same descriptor twice (master...importdescriptors_twice) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19651
< wumpus> jnewbery: thanks will take a look
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a78742830aa3...14ceddd29085
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ded742b Gleb Naumenko: Move filtering banned addrs inside GetAddresses()
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7cc0e81 Gleb Naumenko: Remove useless 2500 limit on AddrMan queries
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master acd6135 Gleb Naumenko: Cache responses to addr requests
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #18991: Cache responses to GETADDR to prevent topology leaks (master...2020-05-addr-response-caching) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18991
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19652: Add thread safety annotations to Mempool{Info}ToJSON() (master...200803-mmx-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19652
< hebasto> jeremyrubin: did you see recent #18710 update and its benchmarks by martinus?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18710 | Add local thread pool to CCheckQueue by hebasto · Pull Request #18710 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> hebasto: why do you think adding GUARDED_BY is a design change? it's just those members existed before bitcoin source had thread safety annotations, as far as i know?
< hebasto> aj: it changes class invariants
< aj> hebasto: no it doesn't? (or: i don't see how?)
< aj> hebasto: (i'd say that it *documents* class invariants, just like the rest of your pr)
< hebasto> aj: ok, if new GUARDED_BY will not cause to introduce new need to acquire a lock somewhere
< aj> hebasto: seemed to work fine for me, fwiw
< aj> hebasto: (if it did demand a lock was acquired somewhere, i'd expect that to be a bug worth fixing anyway)
< hebasto> btw, `AssertLock{Not}Held` were my tools to transit `CTxMemPool::cs` to `RecursiveMutex` in #19306
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19306 | refactor: Replace RecursiveMutex with Mutex in CTxMemPool by hebasto · Pull Request #19306 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> hebasto: yep
< hebasto> oops s/RecursiveMutex/Mutex/
< aj> s/to/from/ would've been shorter
< * hebasto> :)
< hebasto> aj: sudden run-time error that were not caught by compile-time thread safety analysis could be (almost) eliminated with full annotation coverage
< aj> hebasto: it crossed my mind that maybe DEBUG_LOCKORDER should check for accidental recursive locking attempts with Mutex (or even RecursiveMutex if it just logged a warning on first occurence or so?)
< aj> hebasto: hmm, "EX_LOCKS_REQ(!cs)" complaints are only warnings, not errors?
< hebasto> we could always pass -Werror, no?
< aj> hebasto: i thought we were?
< aj> no, apparently not? did i do configure wrong?
< aj> ah, missed --enable-werror i guess?
< hebasto> by default `--enable-werror=no`
< aj> yeah, there's already '-Werror=thread-safety' by default
< aj> or not?
< hebasto> you should add `--enable-werror`
< aj> yeah, have done so. weird i haven't felt forced to before
< aj> hebasto: hmm, apart from a missing EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!cs_wallet) in BlockUntilSyncedToCurrentChain(), it seems possible to annotate AssertLockNotHeldInternal with EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!*cs) (have to templatize it to avoid "dereferencing" a void* too of course)
< hebasto> aj: did you see #19337 ?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19337 | sync: detect double lock from the same thread by vasild · Pull Request #19337 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< aj> hebasto: yay!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 9 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/14ceddd29085...34eb2362581d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 131a2f0 Pieter Wuille: scripted-diff: rename base_blob::data to m_data
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5678250 Pieter Wuille: Make uint256 Span-convertible by adding ::data()
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e63dcc3 Pieter Wuille: Add MakeUCharSpan, to help constructing Span<[const] unsigned char>
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #19326: Simplify hash.h interface using Spans (master...202006_spanhashes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19326
< hebasto> aj: to feel safe a "clone" of `AssertLockHeld()` needed but without `ASSERT_EXCLUSIVE_LOCK()`
< hebasto> how it could be named?
< aj> hebasto: RequireLockHeld or ExpectLockHeld maybe? *shrug*
< hebasto> `RequireLockHeld` looks good!
< warren> jonasschnelli: hey. Curious whatever happened to BIP150 and 151. Did that end up getting rolled into a replacement BIP?
< sipa> warren: BIP324 will replace BIP151
< warren> thanks
< warren> is any authentication scheme currently favored in conjunction with this?
< sipa> we have some theoretic work, a successor to countersign, but nothing published
< jeremyrubin> Does the linter need to be kicked?
< fjahr> jeremyrubin: seems so, I saw this yesterday: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19439#issuecomment-667732466
< fjahr> But it doesn't fail locally for me
< fjahr> seems to be an error specific to the CI environment, but maybe someone else can reproduce it?
< jeremyrubin> that seemed to be the issue thanks
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #19653: wallet: Replace -zapwallettxes with zapwallettxes RPC (master...zapwallettxes-rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19653
< luke-jr> achow101: please introduce and remove in separate PRs..
< achow101> luke-jr: it's moving one functionality to another place
< achow101> we did the same thing for upgradewallet
< luke-jr> pretty sure I said the same for that too