- package evidence
-
- import (
- "bytes"
- "errors"
- "fmt"
- "time"
-
- "github.com/tendermint/tendermint/light"
- "github.com/tendermint/tendermint/types"
- )
-
- // verify verifies the evidence fully by checking:
- // - It has not already been committed
- // - it is sufficiently recent (MaxAge)
- // - it is from a key who was a validator at the given height
- // - it is internally consistent with state
- // - it was properly signed by the alleged equivocator and meets the individual evidence verification requirements
- func (evpool *Pool) verify(evidence types.Evidence) (*info, error) {
- var (
- state = evpool.State()
- height = state.LastBlockHeight
- evidenceParams = state.ConsensusParams.Evidence
- ageNumBlocks = height - evidence.Height()
- )
-
- // verify the time of the evidence
- blockMeta := evpool.blockStore.LoadBlockMeta(evidence.Height())
- if blockMeta == nil {
- return nil, fmt.Errorf("don't have header at height #%d", evidence.Height())
- }
- evTime := blockMeta.Header.Time
- ageDuration := state.LastBlockTime.Sub(evTime)
-
- // check that the evidence hasn't expired
- if ageDuration > evidenceParams.MaxAgeDuration && ageNumBlocks > evidenceParams.MaxAgeNumBlocks {
- return nil, fmt.Errorf(
- "evidence from height %d (created at: %v) is too old; min height is %d and evidence can not be older than %v",
- evidence.Height(),
- evTime,
- height-evidenceParams.MaxAgeNumBlocks,
- state.LastBlockTime.Add(evidenceParams.MaxAgeDuration),
- )
- }
-
- // apply the evidence-specific verification logic
- switch ev := evidence.(type) {
- case *types.DuplicateVoteEvidence:
- valSet, err := evpool.stateDB.LoadValidators(evidence.Height())
- if err != nil {
- return nil, err
- }
- err = VerifyDuplicateVote(ev, state.ChainID, valSet)
- if err != nil {
- return nil, fmt.Errorf("verifying duplicate vote evidence: %w", err)
- }
-
- _, val := valSet.GetByAddress(ev.VoteA.ValidatorAddress)
-
- return &info{
- Evidence: evidence,
- Time: evTime,
- Validators: []*types.Validator{val}, // just a single validator for duplicate vote evidence
- TotalVotingPower: valSet.TotalVotingPower(),
- }, nil
-
- case *types.LightClientAttackEvidence:
- commonHeader, err := getSignedHeader(evpool.blockStore, evidence.Height())
- if err != nil {
- return nil, err
- }
- commonVals, err := evpool.stateDB.LoadValidators(evidence.Height())
- if err != nil {
- return nil, err
- }
- trustedHeader := commonHeader
- // in the case of lunatic the trusted header is different to the common header
- if evidence.Height() != ev.ConflictingBlock.Height {
- trustedHeader, err = getSignedHeader(evpool.blockStore, ev.ConflictingBlock.Height)
- if err != nil {
- return nil, err
- }
- }
-
- err = VerifyLightClientAttack(ev, commonHeader, trustedHeader, commonVals, state.LastBlockTime,
- state.ConsensusParams.Evidence.MaxAgeDuration)
- if err != nil {
- return nil, err
- }
- // find out what type of attack this was and thus extract the malicious validators. Note in the case of an
- // Amnesia attack we don't have any malicious validators.
- validators, attackType := getMaliciousValidators(ev, commonVals, trustedHeader)
- totalVotingPower := ev.ConflictingBlock.ValidatorSet.TotalVotingPower()
- if attackType == lunaticType {
- totalVotingPower = commonVals.TotalVotingPower()
- }
-
- return &info{
- Evidence: evidence,
- Time: evTime,
- Validators: validators,
- TotalVotingPower: totalVotingPower,
- }, nil
- default:
- return nil, fmt.Errorf("unrecognized evidence type: %T", evidence)
- }
- }
-
- // VerifyLightClientAttack verifies LightClientAttackEvidence against the state of the full node. This involves
- // the following checks:
- // - the common header from the full node has at least 1/3 voting power which is also present in
- // the conflicting header's commit
- // - the nodes trusted header at the same height as the conflicting header has a different hash
- func VerifyLightClientAttack(e *types.LightClientAttackEvidence, commonHeader, trustedHeader *types.SignedHeader,
- commonVals *types.ValidatorSet, now time.Time, trustPeriod time.Duration) error {
- // In the case of lunatic attack we need to perform a single verification jump between the
- // common header and the conflicting one
- if commonHeader.Height != trustedHeader.Height {
- err := light.Verify(commonHeader, commonVals, e.ConflictingBlock.SignedHeader, e.ConflictingBlock.ValidatorSet,
- trustPeriod, now, 0*time.Second, light.DefaultTrustLevel)
- if err != nil {
- return fmt.Errorf("skipping verification from common to conflicting header failed: %w", err)
- }
- } else {
- // in the case of equivocation and amnesia we expect some header hashes to be correctly derived
- if isInvalidHeader(trustedHeader.Header, e.ConflictingBlock.Header) {
- return errors.New("common height is the same as conflicting block height so expected the conflicting" +
- " block to be correctly derived yet it wasn't")
- }
- // ensure that 2/3 of the validator set did vote for this block
- if err := e.ConflictingBlock.ValidatorSet.VerifyCommitLight(trustedHeader.ChainID, e.ConflictingBlock.Commit.BlockID,
- e.ConflictingBlock.Height, e.ConflictingBlock.Commit); err != nil {
- return fmt.Errorf("invalid commit from conflicting block: %w", err)
- }
- }
-
- if bytes.Equal(trustedHeader.Hash(), e.ConflictingBlock.Hash()) {
- return fmt.Errorf("trusted header hash matches the evidence conflicting header hash: %X",
- trustedHeader.Hash())
- }
-
- return nil
- }
-
- // VerifyDuplicateVote verifies DuplicateVoteEvidence against the state of full node. This involves the
- // following checks:
- // - the validator is in the validator set at the height of the evidence
- // - the height, round, type and validator address of the votes must be the same
- // - the block ID's must be different
- // - The signatures must both be valid
- func VerifyDuplicateVote(e *types.DuplicateVoteEvidence, chainID string, valSet *types.ValidatorSet) error {
- _, val := valSet.GetByAddress(e.VoteA.ValidatorAddress)
- if val == nil {
- return fmt.Errorf("address %X was not a validator at height %d", e.VoteA.ValidatorAddress, e.Height())
- }
- pubKey := val.PubKey
-
- // H/R/S must be the same
- if e.VoteA.Height != e.VoteB.Height ||
- e.VoteA.Round != e.VoteB.Round ||
- e.VoteA.Type != e.VoteB.Type {
- return fmt.Errorf("h/r/s does not match: %d/%d/%v vs %d/%d/%v",
- e.VoteA.Height, e.VoteA.Round, e.VoteA.Type,
- e.VoteB.Height, e.VoteB.Round, e.VoteB.Type)
- }
-
- // Address must be the same
- if !bytes.Equal(e.VoteA.ValidatorAddress, e.VoteB.ValidatorAddress) {
- return fmt.Errorf("validator addresses do not match: %X vs %X",
- e.VoteA.ValidatorAddress,
- e.VoteB.ValidatorAddress,
- )
- }
-
- // BlockIDs must be different
- if e.VoteA.BlockID.Equals(e.VoteB.BlockID) {
- return fmt.Errorf(
- "block IDs are the same (%v) - not a real duplicate vote",
- e.VoteA.BlockID,
- )
- }
-
- // pubkey must match address (this should already be true, sanity check)
- addr := e.VoteA.ValidatorAddress
- if !bytes.Equal(pubKey.Address(), addr) {
- return fmt.Errorf("address (%X) doesn't match pubkey (%v - %X)",
- addr, pubKey, pubKey.Address())
- }
- va := e.VoteA.ToProto()
- vb := e.VoteB.ToProto()
- // Signatures must be valid
- if !pubKey.VerifySignature(types.VoteSignBytes(chainID, va), e.VoteA.Signature) {
- return fmt.Errorf("verifying VoteA: %w", types.ErrVoteInvalidSignature)
- }
- if !pubKey.VerifySignature(types.VoteSignBytes(chainID, vb), e.VoteB.Signature) {
- return fmt.Errorf("verifying VoteB: %w", types.ErrVoteInvalidSignature)
- }
-
- return nil
- }
-
- func getSignedHeader(blockStore BlockStore, height int64) (*types.SignedHeader, error) {
- blockMeta := blockStore.LoadBlockMeta(height)
- if blockMeta == nil {
- return nil, fmt.Errorf("don't have header at height #%d", height)
- }
- commit := blockStore.LoadBlockCommit(height)
- if commit == nil {
- return nil, fmt.Errorf("don't have commit at height #%d", height)
- }
- return &types.SignedHeader{
- Header: &blockMeta.Header,
- Commit: commit,
- }, nil
- }
-
- // getMaliciousValidators finds out what style of attack LightClientAttackEvidence was and then works out who
- // the malicious validators were and returns them.
- func getMaliciousValidators(evidence *types.LightClientAttackEvidence, commonVals *types.ValidatorSet,
- trusted *types.SignedHeader) ([]*types.Validator, lightClientAttackType) {
- var validators []*types.Validator
- // First check if the header is invalid. This means that it is a lunatic attack and therefore we take the
- // validators who are in the commonVals and voted for the lunatic header
- if isInvalidHeader(trusted.Header, evidence.ConflictingBlock.Header) {
- for _, commitSig := range evidence.ConflictingBlock.Commit.Signatures {
- if !commitSig.ForBlock() {
- continue
- }
-
- _, val := commonVals.GetByAddress(commitSig.ValidatorAddress)
- if val == nil {
- // validator wasn't in the common validator set
- continue
- }
- validators = append(validators, val)
- }
- return validators, lunaticType
- // Next, check to see if it is an equivocation attack and both commits are in the same round. If this is the
- // case then we take the validators from the conflicting light block validator set that voted in both headers.
- } else if trusted.Commit.Round == evidence.ConflictingBlock.Commit.Round {
- // validator hashes are the same therefore the indexing order of validators are the same and thus we
- // only need a single loop to find the validators that voted twice.
- for i := 0; i < len(evidence.ConflictingBlock.Commit.Signatures); i++ {
- sigA := evidence.ConflictingBlock.Commit.Signatures[i]
- if sigA.Absent() {
- continue
- }
-
- sigB := trusted.Commit.Signatures[i]
- if sigB.Absent() {
- continue
- }
-
- _, val := evidence.ConflictingBlock.ValidatorSet.GetByAddress(sigA.ValidatorAddress)
- validators = append(validators, val)
- }
- return validators, equivocationType
-
- }
- // if the rounds are different then this is an amnesia attack. Unfortunately, given the nature of the attack,
- // we aren't able yet to deduce which are malicious validators and which are not hence we return an
- // empty validator set.
- return validators, amnesiaType
- }
-
- // isInvalidHeader takes a trusted header and matches it againt a conflicting header
- // to determine whether the conflicting header was the product of a valid state transition
- // or not. If it is then all the deterministic fields of the header should be the same.
- // If not, it is an invalid header and constitutes a lunatic attack.
- func isInvalidHeader(trusted, conflicting *types.Header) bool {
- return !bytes.Equal(trusted.ValidatorsHash, conflicting.ValidatorsHash) ||
- !bytes.Equal(trusted.NextValidatorsHash, conflicting.NextValidatorsHash) ||
- !bytes.Equal(trusted.ConsensusHash, conflicting.ConsensusHash) ||
- !bytes.Equal(trusted.AppHash, conflicting.AppHash) ||
- !bytes.Equal(trusted.LastResultsHash, conflicting.LastResultsHash)
- }
-
- type lightClientAttackType int
-
- const (
- lunaticType lightClientAttackType = iota + 1
- equivocationType
- amnesiaType
- )
|