| Gói / sản phẩm | Phiên bản bị ảnh hưởng | Phiên bản đã vá |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum | ≥ 1.9.4, < 1.9.20 | 1.9.20 |
| go ethereum | ≥ 1.9.4, < 1.9.20 | 1.9.20 |
A consensus-vulnerability in Geth could cause a chain split, where vulnerable versions refuse to accept the canonical chain.
A flaw was repoted at 2020-08-11 by John Youngseok Yang (Software Platform Lab), where a particular sequence of transactions could cause a consensus failure.
Tx 1:
sender invokes caller.caller invokes 0xaa. 0xaa has 3 wei, does a self-destruct-to-selfcaller does a 1 wei -call to 0xaa, who thereby has 1 wei (the code in 0xaa still executed, since the tx is still ongoing, but doesn't redo the selfdestruct, it takes a different path if callvalue is non-zero)Tx 2:
sender does a 5-wei call to 0xaa. No exec (since no code).In geth, the result would be that 0xaa had 6 wei, whereas OE reported (correctly) 5 wei. Furthermore, in geth, if the second tx was not executed, the 0xaa would be destructed, resulting in 0 wei. Thus obviously wrong.
It was determined that the root cause was this commit from this PR. The semantics of createObject was subtly changd, into returning a non-nil object (with deleted=true) where it previously did not if the account had been destructed. This return value caused the new object to inherit the old balance:
func (s *StateDB) CreateAccount(addr common.Address) {
newObj, prev := s.createObject(addr)
if prev != nil {
newObj.setBalance(prev.data.Balance)
}
}
It was determined that the minimal possible correct fix was
+++ b/core/state/statedb.go
@@ -589,7 +589,10 @@ func (s *StateDB) createObject(addr common.Address) (newobj, prev *stateObject)
s.journal.append(resetObjectChange{prev: prev, prevdestruct: prevdestruct})
}
s.setStateObject(newobj)
- return newobj, prev
+ if prev != nil && !prev.deleted {
+ return newobj, prev
+ }
+ return newobj, nil
See above. The fix was included in Geth "Paragade".
Bạn đang dùng một trong các sản phẩm này? Quét site để biết có đang lộ phiên bản có lỗ hổng không.
Quét site miễn phív1.9.20The bug was found by @johnyangk and reported via [email protected].
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: