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

gossamer should not ban other gossamer nodes #2098

Closed
noot opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #2435
Closed

gossamer should not ban other gossamer nodes #2098

noot opened this issue Dec 2, 2021 · 5 comments · Fixed by #2435
Assignees
Labels
Epic Issue used to track development status of a complex feature, aggregates several issues

Comments

@noot
Copy link
Contributor

noot commented Dec 2, 2021

Task summary

  • on the devnet, if you add a log in the peerset reportPeer function to check if a peer reaches the BannedThresholdValue, you will see that this ends up happening quite often.
  • gossamer should not be banning other gossamer nodes, so either there is an issue with the scoring, or gossamer nodes are performing some "bad" behaviour that needs to be fixed
@timwu20
Copy link
Contributor

timwu20 commented Jan 7, 2022

Was unable to reproduce this issue on current development branch. Block production fails after the epoch transition. The actual epoch varies from run to run. Will pick this back up after @noot finishes her refactor of BABE.

@timwu20 timwu20 removed their assignment Jan 7, 2022
@timwu20 timwu20 self-assigned this Jan 12, 2022
@timwu20 timwu20 added the Epic Issue used to track development status of a complex feature, aggregates several issues label Jan 20, 2022
@kishansagathiya
Copy link
Contributor

kishansagathiya commented Mar 18, 2022

Was able to replicate this in one of my branches. I saw some 3009 negative reputation changes, out of which 2851 were because of duplicate gossip messages.
I believe making sure we don't send duplicate gossip message could fix this problem. On it.

@kishansagathiya
Copy link
Contributor

Some common negative peer reward

2022-03-18T17:12:17+05:30 DBUG reporting reputation change of -1024 to peer 12D3KooWH1cgFi2PkehEH2sHtkx7eQDkyyk3JikpvVNZqTRsoWv3, reason: Request timeout	handler.go:L81	pkg=peerset

frequency 33

2022-03-18T17:12:07+05:30 DBUG reporting reputation change of -4 to peer 12D3KooWH1cgFi2PkehEH2sHtkx7eQDkyyk3JikpvVNZqTRsoWv3, reason: Duplicate gossip	handler.go:L81	pkg=peerset

frequency 3009

2022-03-18T17:12:09+05:30 DBUG reporting reputation change of -2147483648 to peer 12D3KooWFgz1t6FUAFDMYwUjHdcZn3Td1Lts19sS5SaBX9q6DLMn, reason: Unsupported protocol	handler.go:L81	pkg=peerset

frequency 6

The message of banned threshold is coming right after negative rewards by unsupported protocol, which makes sense. bunch such negative reward could easily get the peer below banned threshold.

@kishansagathiya
Copy link
Contributor

kishansagathiya commented Mar 21, 2022

So, I am seeing that sometime we fail to check if /paritytech/grandpa/1 protocol is supported and sometimes we find that it is not supported, but protocol /paritytech/grandpa/1 is not supported by peer is lot more common

@kishansagathiya
Copy link
Contributor

I can replicate this on development as well with a 4 node network.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Epic Issue used to track development status of a complex feature, aggregates several issues
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants