💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "build: remove ENABLE_HARDENING condition from check-security":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31892#issuecomment-2665496209)
> It should fail earlier, at the build system level.

I'm not sure about making it fail on the build system level (i.e. keeping as is). Isn't that just adding brittle assumptions to the target's configuration?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "test: feature_assumeutxo.py Windows timeout":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31894#issuecomment-2665500269)
> Or maybe investigate why the `net` thread appears to not get the interrupt signal?

My impression was that the `net` thread is stopped, along with the http workers, and the http thread. See:

```
node1 ...T14:10:53.440186Z (mocktime...) [net] [D:\a\bitcoin\bitcoin\src\util\thread.cpp:22] [TraceThread] net thread exit
```

There seem to be two issues here:

* The `stop` RPC timing out
* The node not stopping

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: remove ENABLE_HARDENING condition from check-security":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31892#issuecomment-2665503440)
> Isn't that just adding brittle assumptions to the target's configuration?

Yea. I don't see why we need to add more logic to try and preemptively catch some issue, rather than just unconditionally running the tests that soley exist to catch that issue.

💬 pinheadmz commented on issue "test: feature_assumeutxo.py Windows timeout":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31894#issuecomment-2665506921)
Hm yeah, but then why does `enabling extra block-relay-only peers` happen after that?

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "cmake: add optional source files to bitcoin_crypto and crc32c directly"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31268)

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "ci: tidy task doesn't run on aarch64"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31697)

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "build: align debugging flags to `-O0`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29796)

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#pullrequestreview-2623295004)
Approach ACK 2042ed105578a71234295b01be39ad8607722abe

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1959586025)
The `Assume()` can be triggered during normal circumstances: if the first wait quits with `TipBlock()` null and `chainman().m_interrupt` being `true`. The easiest way to work around this would be to swap the order in the second condition:

```diff
- Assume(notifications().TipBlock()) != current_tip || chainman().m_interrupt
+ chainman().m_interrupt || Assume(notifications().TipBlock()) != current_tip
```
that might be a bit fragile though, wrt future changes.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1959608374)
Same here, if the user provides `height=0`, and `getTip()` returns `nullopt`, then this will be `while (0 < 0)`, will never enter and `block` will remain `nullopt` and be dereferenced at the end.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1959617648)
nit: maybe use `uint256::ZERO`, also used in commit b954af72e4d6a83b3ba701b7ee52d97f2af3254b `Have createNewBlock() wait for a tip`:

```suggestion
uint256 tip_hash{block ? block->hash : uint256::ZERO};
```

💬 vasild commented on pull request "Have createNewBlock() wait for tip, make rpc handle shutdown during long poll and wait methods":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31785#discussion_r1959604318)
This could crash in the following (stupid) scenario:
* the user provides `0` as desired block hash to the `waitforblock`
* `getTip()` returns `nullopt`, which is assigned to `block`
* the `while` loop is never entered, not even once so `block` remains `nullopt`
* at the end we try to dereference the `nullopt` `block` :rescue_worker_helmet:

We shouldn't crash even on such "idiotic" input. Maybe change the `while` condition:

```diff
- while (tip_hash != hash) {
+ while (tip_hash != ha
...

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "build: remove ENABLE_HARDENING condition from check-security"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31892#pullrequestreview-2623386934)
ACK 113a7a363faf1ace6b08a28cf4075dbce05f8f04.

> This check is only used in release builds...

Not directly related to this PR, but It seems reasonable to consider removing this condition as well:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/28dec6c5f8bd35ef4e6cb8d7aa3f21b6879acf98/cmake/module/Maintenance.cmake#L27

👋 hebasto's pull request is ready for review: "cmake: Make implicit `libbitcoinkernel` dependencies explicit"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31884)

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "cmake: Make implicit `libbitcoinkernel` dependencies explicit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31884#issuecomment-2665584719)
cc @TheCharlatan @theuni

🤔 rkrux reviewed a pull request: "descriptor: check whitespace in pubkeys within fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#pullrequestreview-2623382128)
Somewhere either in the PR title or description, it should be mentioned that this works for descriptors containing private keys as well as observed in the tests and in the `ParsePubKeyInner` code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/28dec6c5f8bd35ef4e6cb8d7aa3f21b6879acf98/src/script/descriptor.cpp#L1540-L1550

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptor: check whitespace in pubkeys within fragments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#discussion_r1959643968)
Can add 2 more assertions: one where the middle key in a multi descriptor contains a whitespace, another that tests on a private key.

```python
assert_raises_rpc_error(-5,
"Multi: Key ' 03774ae7f858a9411e5ef4246b70c65aac5649980be5c17891bbec17895da008cb' is invalid due to whitespace",
self.nodes[0].getdescriptorinfo,
"wsh(multi(2,03a0434d9e47f3c86235477c7b1ae6ae5d3442d49b1943c2b752a68e2a
...

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptor: check whitespace in pubkeys within fragments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#discussion_r1959636120)
WIF private keys are passed in the second argument of `CheckUnparsable`, which accepts a public key `const std::string& pub` instead. The comment also mentions pubkeys instead of privkeys.

A simple swapping of the arguments doesn't work because the error of the second argument overwrites the error of the first argument making the `CheckUnparsable()` brittle.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "descriptor: check whitespace in pubkeys within fragments":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#discussion_r1959639872)
`contains a whitespace at the beginning or the end of`

🤔 sipa reviewed a pull request: "descriptor: check whitespace in pubkeys within fragments"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31603#pullrequestreview-2623448041)
utACK bdc6ac10caf92901657b4d95bf2c11cccc8ac9ea

It's unfortunate that this in theory breaks RPC importing for (very limited) positions where spaces were allowed before, but it makes sense for consistency. Given that wallets always store descriptors in normalized form, I don't believe this will result in wallet loading breaking.