Merge pull request #223 from status-im/findnode-further-fixes

- Fix FindNode to return nodes with specific distance + tests
- Add Resolve + test
This commit is contained in:
Kim De Mey 2020-04-21 21:32:02 +02:00 committed by GitHub
commit 8d207cec9b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
3 changed files with 306 additions and 107 deletions

View File

@ -1,3 +1,77 @@
# nim-eth - Node Discovery Protocol v5
# Copyright (c) 2020 Status Research & Development GmbH
# Licensed under either of
# * Apache License, version 2.0, (LICENSE-APACHEv2)
# * MIT license (LICENSE-MIT)
# at your option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed except
# according to those terms.
## Node Discovery Protocol v5
##
## Node discovery protocol implementation as per specification:
## https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/blob/master/discv5/discv5.md
##
## This node discovery protocol implementation uses the same underlying
## implementation of routing table as is also used for the discovery v4
## implementation, which is the same or similar as the one described in the
## original Kademlia paper:
## https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/~petar/papers/maymounkov-kademlia-lncs.pdf
##
## This might not be the most optimal implementation for the node discovery
## protocol v5. Why?
##
## The Kademlia paper describes an implementation that starts off from one
## k-bucket, and keeps splitting the bucket as more nodes are discovered and
## added. The bucket splits only on the part of the binary tree where our own
## node its id belongs too (same prefix). Resulting eventually in a k-bucket per
## logarithmic distance (log base2 distance). Well, not really, as nodes with
## ids in the closer distance ranges will never be found. And because of this an
## optimisation is done where buckets will also split sometimes even if the
## nodes own id does not have the same prefix (this is to avoid creating highly
## unbalanced branches which would require longer lookups).
##
## Now, some implementations take a more simplified approach. They just create
## directly a bucket for each possible logarithmic distance (e.g. here 1->256).
## Some implementations also don't create buckets with logarithmic distance
## lower than a certain value (e.g. only 1/15th of the highest buckets),
## because the closer to the node (the lower the distance), the less chance
## there is to still find nodes.
##
## The discovery protocol v4 its `FindNode` call will request the k closest
## nodes. As does original Kademlia. This effectively puts the work at the node
## that gets the request. This node will have to check its buckets and gather
## the closest. Some implementations go over all the nodes in all the buckets
## for this (e.g. go-ethereum discovery v4). However, in our bucket splitting
## approach, this search is improved.
##
## In the discovery protocol v5 the `FindNode` call is changed and now the
## logarithmic distance is passed as parameter instead of the NodeId. And only
## nodes that match that logarithmic distance are allowed to be returned.
## This change was made to not put the trust at the requested node for selecting
## the closest nodes. To counter a possible (mistaken) difference in
## implementation, but more importantly for security reasons. See also:
## https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/blob/master/discv5/discv5-rationale.md#115-guard-against-kademlia-implementation-flaws
##
## The result is that in an implementation which just stores buckets per
## logarithmic distance, it simply needs to return the right bucket. In our
## split-bucket implementation, this cannot be done as such and thus the closest
## neighbours search is still done. And to do this, a reverse calculation of an
## id at given logarithmic distance is needed (which is why there is the
## `idAtDistance` proc). Next, nodes with invalid distances need to be filtered
## out to be compliant to the specification. This can most likely get further
## optimised, but it sounds likely better to switch away from the split-bucket
## approach. I believe that the main benefit it has is improved lookups
## (due to no unbalanced branches), and it looks like this will be negated by
## limiting the returned nodes to only the ones of the requested logarithmic
## distance for the `FindNode` call.
## This `FindNode` change in discovery v5 will also have an effect on the
## efficiency of the network. Work will be moved from the receiver of
## `FindNodes` to the requester. But this also means more network traffic,
## as less nodes will potentially be passed around per `FindNode` call, and thus
## more requests will be needed for a lookup (adding bandwidth and latency).
## This might be a concern for mobile devices.
import
std/[tables, sets, options, math, random],
json_serialization/std/net,
@ -61,7 +135,7 @@ proc addNode*(d: Protocol, enr: EnrUri) =
doAssert(res)
d.addNode newNode(r)
proc getNode*(d: Protocol, id: NodeId): Node =
proc getNode*(d: Protocol, id: NodeId): Option[Node] =
d.routingTable.getNode(id)
proc randomNodes*(d: Protocol, count: int): seq[Node] =
@ -213,9 +287,7 @@ proc receive*(d: Protocol, a: Address, msg: openArray[byte]) {.gcsafe,
var packet: Packet
let decoded = d.codec.decodeEncrypted(sender, a, msg, authTag, node, packet)
if decoded == DecodeStatus.Success:
if node.isNil:
node = d.routingTable.getNode(sender)
else:
if not node.isNil:
# Not filling table with nodes without correct IP in the ENR
if a.ip == node.address.ip:
debug "Adding new node to routing table", node = $node,
@ -232,7 +304,7 @@ proc receive*(d: Protocol, a: Address, msg: openArray[byte]) {.gcsafe,
if d.awaitedPackets.take((sender, packet.reqId), waiter):
waiter.complete(packet.some)
else:
debug "TODO: handle packet: ", packet = packet.kind, origin = $node
debug "TODO: handle packet: ", packet = packet.kind, origin = a
elif decoded == DecodeStatus.DecryptError:
debug "Could not decrypt packet, respond with whoareyou",
localNode = $d.localNode, address = a
@ -418,6 +490,31 @@ proc lookupRandom*(d: Protocol): Future[seq[Node]]
raise newException(RandomSourceDepleted, "Could not randomize bytes")
d.lookup(id)
proc resolve*(d: Protocol, id: NodeId): Future[Option[Node]] {.async.} =
## Resolve a `Node` based on provided `NodeId`.
##
## This will first look in the own DHT. If the node is known, it will try to
## contact if for newer information. If node is not known or it does not
## reply, a lookup is done to see if it can find a (newer) record of the node
## on the network.
let node = d.getNode(id)
if node.isSome():
let request = await d.findNode(node.get(), 0)
if request.len > 0:
return some(request[0])
let discovered = await d.lookup(id)
for n in discovered:
if n.id == id:
# TODO: Not getting any new seqNum here as in a lookup nodes in table with
# new seqNum don't get replaced.
if node.isSome() and node.get().record.seqNum >= n.record.seqNum:
return node
else:
return some(n)
proc revalidateNode*(d: Protocol, n: Node)
{.async, raises:[Defect, Exception].} = # TODO: Exception
trace "Ping to revalidate node", node = $n

View File

@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
import
std/[algorithm, times, sequtils, bitops, random, sets], stint, chronicles,
std/[algorithm, times, sequtils, bitops, random, sets, options],
stint, chronicles,
types, node
type
@ -174,11 +175,11 @@ proc addNode*(r: var RoutingTable, n: Node): Node =
# Nothing added, ping evictionCandidate
return evictionCandidate
proc getNode*(r: RoutingTable, id: NodeId): Node =
proc getNode*(r: RoutingTable, id: NodeId): Option[Node] =
let b = r.bucketForNode(id)
for n in b.nodes:
if n.id == id:
return n
return some(n)
proc contains*(r: RoutingTable, n: Node): bool = n in r.bucketForNode(n.id)
@ -191,12 +192,15 @@ proc notFullBuckets(r: RoutingTable): seq[KBucket] =
proc neighbours*(r: RoutingTable, id: NodeId, k: int = BUCKET_SIZE): seq[Node] =
## Return up to k neighbours of the given node.
result = newSeqOfCap[Node](k * 2)
for bucket in r.bucketsByDistanceTo(id):
for n in bucket.nodesByDistanceTo(id):
result.add(n)
if result.len == k * 2:
break
block addNodes:
for bucket in r.bucketsByDistanceTo(id):
for n in bucket.nodesByDistanceTo(id):
result.add(n)
if result.len == k * 2:
break addNodes
# TODO: is this sort still needed? Can we get nodes closer from the "next"
# bucket?
result = sortedByIt(result, it.distanceTo(id))
if result.len > k:
result.setLen(k)
@ -209,9 +213,12 @@ proc idAtDistance*(id: NodeId, dist: uint32): NodeId =
# zeroes and xor those` with the id.
id xor (1.stuint(256) shl (dist.int - 1))
proc neighboursAtDistance*(r: RoutingTable, distance: uint32, k: int = BUCKET_SIZE): seq[Node] =
# TODO: Filter out nodes with not exact distance here?
r.neighbours(idAtDistance(r.thisNode.id, distance), k)
proc neighboursAtDistance*(r: RoutingTable, distance: uint32,
k: int = BUCKET_SIZE): seq[Node] =
result = r.neighbours(idAtDistance(r.thisNode.id, distance), k)
# This is a bit silly, first getting closest nodes then to only keep the ones
# that are exactly the requested distance.
keepIf(result, proc(n: Node): bool = logDist(n.id, r.thisNode.id) == distance)
proc len*(r: RoutingTable): int =
for b in r.buckets: result += b.len

View File

@ -32,110 +32,37 @@ proc randomPacket(tag: PacketTag): seq[byte] =
result.add(rlp.encode(authTag))
result.add(msg)
proc generateNode(privKey = PrivateKey.random()[], port: int): Node =
proc generateNode(privKey = PrivateKey.random()[], port: int = 20302): Node =
let port = Port(port)
let enr = enr.Record.init(1, privKey, some(parseIpAddress("127.0.0.1")),
port, port)
result = newNode(enr)
proc nodeAtDistance(n: Node, d: uint32): Node =
while true:
let node = generateNode()
if logDist(n.id, node.id) == d:
return node
proc nodesAtDistance(n: Node, d: uint32, amount: int): seq[Node] =
for i in 0..<amount:
result.add(nodeAtDistance(n, d))
suite "Discovery v5 Tests":
asyncTest "Random nodes":
let
bootNodeKey = PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a617")[]
bootNode = initDiscoveryNode(bootNodeKey, localAddress(20301))
let nodeKeys = [
PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a618")[],
PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a619")[],
PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a620")[]
]
var nodeAddrs = newSeqOfCap[Address](nodeKeys.len)
for i in 0 ..< nodeKeys.len: nodeAddrs.add(localAddress(20302 + i))
var nodes = zip(nodeKeys, nodeAddrs).mapIt(
initDiscoveryNode(it[0], it[1], @[bootNode.localNode.record]))
nodes.add(bootNode)
for node in nodes:
let discovered = await node.lookupRandom()
check discovered.len < nodes.len
debug "Lookup from random id", node = node.localNode, discovered
# Check for each node if the other nodes shows up in the routing table
for i in nodes:
for j in nodes:
if j != i:
check(nodeIdInNodes(i.localNode.id, j.randomNodes(nodes.len - 1)))
for node in nodes:
await node.closeWait()
asyncTest "Lookup targets":
const
nodeCount = 17
let bootNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301))
bootNode.start()
var nodes = newSeqOfCap[discv5_protocol.Protocol](nodeCount)
nodes.add(bootNode)
for i in 1 ..< nodeCount:
nodes.add(initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301 + i),
@[bootNode.localNode.record]))
nodes[i].start()
for i in 0..<nodeCount-1:
let target = nodes[i]
let discovered = await nodes[nodeCount-1].lookup(target.localNode.id)
debug "Lookup result", target = target.localNode, discovered
# if lookUp would return ordered on distance we could check discovered[0]
check discovered.contains(target.localNode)
for node in nodes:
await node.closeWait()
asyncTest "FindNode with test table":
let mainNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301))
# Generate 1000 random nodes and add to our main node's routing table
for i in 0..<1000:
mainNode.addNode(generateNode(port = 20302 + i))
let
neighbours = mainNode.neighbours(mainNode.localNode.id)
closest = neighbours[0]
closestDistance = logDist(closest.id, mainNode.localNode.id)
debug "Closest neighbour", closestDistance, id=closest.id.toHex()
let
testNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20302),
@[mainNode.localNode.record])
discovered = await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode,
closestDistance)
check closest in discovered
await mainNode.closeWait()
await testNode.closeWait()
asyncTest "GetNode":
# TODO: This could be tested in just a routing table only context
let
node = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20302))
targetNode = generateNode(port = 20303)
targetNode = generateNode()
node.addNode(targetNode)
for i in 0..<1000:
node.addNode(generateNode(port = 20303 + i))
node.addNode(generateNode())
check node.getNode(targetNode.id) == targetNode
let n = node.getNode(targetNode.id)
require n.isSome()
check n.get() == targetNode
await node.closeWait()
@ -157,8 +84,10 @@ suite "Discovery v5 Tests":
await node1.revalidateNode(bootnode.localNode)
await node1.revalidateNode(node2.localNode)
check node1.getNode(bootnode.localNode.id) == bootnode.localNode
check node1.getNode(node2.localNode.id) == nil
let n = node1.getNode(bootnode.localNode.id)
require n.isSome()
check n.get() == bootnode.localNode
check node1.getNode(node2.localNode.id).isNone()
await node1.closeWait()
@ -282,3 +211,169 @@ suite "Discovery v5 Tests":
for (id, d) in testValues:
check idAtDistance(targetId, d) == parse(id, UInt256, 16)
asyncTest "FindNode Test":
const dist = 253
let
mainNodeKey = PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a617")[]
testNodeKey = PrivateKey.fromHex(
"a2b50376a79b1a8c8a3296485572bdfbf54708bb46d3c25d73d2723aaaf6a618")[]
mainNode = initDiscoveryNode(mainNodeKey, localAddress(20301))
testNode = initDiscoveryNode(testNodeKey, localAddress(20302))
# logarithmic distance between mainNode and testNode is 256
let nodes = nodesAtDistance(mainNode.localNode, dist, 10)
for n in nodes:
mainNode.addNode(n)
# Get ENR of the node itself
var discovered =
await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode, 0)
check:
discovered.len == 1
discovered[0] == mainNode.localNode
# Get ENRs of nodes added at provided logarithmic distance
discovered =
await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode, dist)
check discovered.len == 10
for n in nodes:
check discovered.contains(n)
# Too high logarithmic distance, caps at 256
discovered =
await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode, 4294967295'u32)
check:
discovered.len == 1
discovered[0] == testNode.localNode
# Empty bucket
discovered =
await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode, 254)
check discovered.len == 0
let moreNodes = nodesAtDistance(mainNode.localNode, dist, 10)
for n in moreNodes:
mainNode.addNode(n)
# Full bucket
discovered =
await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode, dist)
check discovered.len == 16
await mainNode.closeWait()
await testNode.closeWait()
asyncTest "FindNode with test table":
let mainNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301))
# Generate 1000 random nodes and add to our main node's routing table
for i in 0..<1000:
mainNode.addNode(generateNode())
let
neighbours = mainNode.neighbours(mainNode.localNode.id)
closest = neighbours[0]
closestDistance = logDist(closest.id, mainNode.localNode.id)
debug "Closest neighbour", closestDistance, id=closest.id.toHex()
let
testNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20302),
@[mainNode.localNode.record])
discovered = await discv5_protocol.findNode(testNode, mainNode.localNode,
closestDistance)
check closest in discovered
await mainNode.closeWait()
await testNode.closeWait()
asyncTest "Lookup targets":
const
nodeCount = 17
let bootNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301))
bootNode.start()
var nodes = newSeqOfCap[discv5_protocol.Protocol](nodeCount)
nodes.add(bootNode)
for i in 1 ..< nodeCount:
nodes.add(initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301 + i),
@[bootNode.localNode.record]))
nodes[i].start()
for i in 0..<nodeCount-1:
let target = nodes[i]
let discovered = await nodes[nodeCount-1].lookup(target.localNode.id)
debug "Lookup result", target = target.localNode, discovered
# if lookUp would return ordered on distance we could check discovered[0]
check discovered.contains(target.localNode)
for node in nodes:
await node.closeWait()
asyncTest "Resolve target":
let
mainNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20301))
lookupNode = initDiscoveryNode(PrivateKey.random()[], localAddress(20302))
targetKey = PrivateKey.random()[]
targetAddress = localAddress(20303)
targetNode = initDiscoveryNode(targetKey, targetAddress)
targetId = targetNode.localNode.id
var targetSeqNum = targetNode.localNode.record.seqNum
# Populate DHT with target through a ping. Next, close target and see
# if resolve works (only local lookup)
block:
let pong = await targetNode.ping(mainNode.localNode)
require pong.isSome()
await targetNode.closeWait()
let n = await mainNode.resolve(targetId)
require n.isSome()
check:
n.get().id == targetId
n.get().record.seqNum == targetSeqNum
# Bring target back online, update seqNum in ENR, check if we get the
# updated ENR.
block:
# TODO: need to add some logic to update ENRs properly
targetSeqNum.inc()
let r = enr.Record.init(targetSeqNum, targetKey,
some(targetAddress.ip), targetAddress.tcpPort, targetAddress.udpPort)
targetNode.localNode.record = r
targetNode.open()
let n = await mainNode.resolve(targetId)
require n.isSome()
check:
n.get().id == targetId
n.get().record.seqNum == targetSeqNum
# Update seqNum in ENR again, ping lookupNode to be added in DHT,
# close targetNode, resolve should lookup, check if we get updated ENR.
block:
targetSeqNum.inc()
let r = enr.Record.init(3, targetKey, some(targetAddress.ip),
targetAddress.tcpPort, targetAddress.udpPort)
targetNode.localNode.record = r
let pong = await targetNode.ping(lookupNode.localNode)
require pong.isSome()
await targetNode.closeWait()
# TODO: This step should eventually not be needed and ENRs with new seqNum
# should just get updated in the lookup.
await mainNode.revalidateNode(targetNode.localNode)
mainNode.addNode(lookupNode.localNode.record)
let n = await mainNode.resolve(targetId)
require n.isSome()
check:
n.get().id == targetId
n.get().record.seqNum == targetSeqNum
await mainNode.closeWait()
await lookupNode.closeWait()