Hi Eric,

I meant C pointer and by "more robust" any kind of memory / CPU DoS arising due to memory management (e.g. hypothetical rule checking the 64 bytes size for all block transactions).

In my understanding, the validation logic equivalent of core's CheckBlock is libbitcoin's block::check():

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/blob/master/src/chain/block.cpp#L751

Best,

Antoine

Le sam. 29 juin 2024 à 02:33, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> a écrit :

Hello Antoine (other),

> If you have code in pure C with variables on the stack no malloc, doing a check of the coinbase size after the socket read can be certainly more robust than checking a non-null pointer.

Can you please clarify this for me? When you say "non-null pointer" do you mean C pointer or transaction input "null point" (sequence of 32 repeating 0x00 bytes and 4 0xff)? What do you mean by "more robust"?

Thanks,
Eric

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bitcoindev/CAfm7D5ppjo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/26b7321b-cc64-44b9-bc95-a4d8feb701e5n%40googlegroups.com.