Skip to content
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

fix!: improve message validation #1460

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Dec 1, 2023
Merged

fix!: improve message validation #1460

merged 15 commits into from
Dec 1, 2023

Conversation

mpoke
Copy link
Contributor

@mpoke mpoke commented Nov 30, 2023

Description

Closes: #1370, #634

  • Improve the validation of IBC packet data.
  • Validate the consumer packet data received by the provider before handling the packets.
  • Refactor OnRecvPacket keeper methods to return an error instead of an IBC ack.

EDIT: validation of MsgSubmitConsumerDoubleVoting will be added in a following PR


Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

  • Included the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • Added ! to the type prefix if state-machine breaking change (i.e., requires coordinated upgrade)
  • Confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
  • Targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
  • Provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
  • Followed the guidelines for building SDK modules
  • Included the necessary unit and integration tests
  • Added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
  • Included comments for documenting Go code
  • Updated the relevant documentation or specification
  • Reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
  • Confirmed all CI checks have passed
  • If this PR is library API breaking, bump the go.mod version string of the repo, and follow through on a new major release

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

  • confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
  • confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
  • confirmed this PR does not introduce changes requiring state migrations, OR confirmed migration code has been added to consumer and/or provider modules
  • confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
  • reviewed state machine logic
  • reviewed API design and naming
  • reviewed documentation is accurate
  • reviewed tests and test coverage

@mpoke mpoke requested a review from a team as a code owner November 30, 2023 11:59
@github-actions github-actions bot added C:Testing Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/consumer Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/provider Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/types Assigned automatically by the PR labeler labels Nov 30, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@MSalopek MSalopek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM in general.

Made some nitpick comments

x/ccv/consumer/keeper/relay.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
x/ccv/consumer/keeper/relay.go Show resolved Hide resolved
return errorsmod.Wrap(ErrInvalidPacketData, "validator fields cannot be empty")
func (vdt SlashPacketData) Validate() error {
// vdt.Validator.Address must be a consensus address
if err := sdk.VerifyAddressFormat(vdt.Validator.Address); err != nil {
Copy link
Contributor

@sainoe sainoe Nov 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
if err := sdk.VerifyAddressFormat(vdt.Validator.Address); err != nil {
if err := sdk.ConsAddressFromBech32(string(vdt.Validator.Address)); err != nil {

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This doesn't work :(

Copy link
Contributor

@sainoe sainoe Nov 30, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, the updated suggestion should work!
Forget the suggestion.

mpoke and others added 2 commits November 30, 2023 14:57
Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <simon.ntz@gmail.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@sainoe sainoe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Great work!

Let's address the MsgSubmitConsumerDoubleVoting validation in another PR.

@mpoke mpoke merged commit d5310b8 into main Dec 1, 2023
16 checks passed
@mpoke mpoke deleted the marius/1370-validate-msgs branch December 1, 2023 11:26
@mpoke mpoke linked an issue Dec 1, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
2 tasks
MSalopek pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2023
* validate ValidatorSetChangePacketData

* update ValidateBasic for ValidatorSetChangePacketData

* update ConsumerPacketData validation

* fix TestConsumerPacketSendExpiredClient

* update TestOnRecvSlashPacketErrors

* fix TestQueueAndSendSlashPacket

* remove TODO

* nit: validate MsgAssignConsumerKey

* add changelog entries

* fix linter

* fix gosec

* rename ValidateBasic to Validate (IBC packets)

* Update x/ccv/types/wire.go

Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <simon.ntz@gmail.com>

* revert SlashPacketData address validation

---------

Co-authored-by: Simon Noetzlin <simon.ntz@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C:Testing Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/consumer Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/provider Assigned automatically by the PR labeler C:x/types Assigned automatically by the PR labeler
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ensure that field lengths are limited ValidateBasic is not called when receiving packets from consumers
3 participants