st12out_of_range

Post Reply
biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

st12out_of_range

Post by biolizard89 »

Someone informed me yesterday that he was frequently getting the linked-below error pop-up (from the system tray icon) in Namecoin-Qt 0.3.80 on Windows:

http://files.veclabs.net/namecoin/excep ... _02_23.png

Apparently it started yesterday and was occurring frequently.

Any idea what would cause this? I haven't seen any similar popups on Linux.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

cassini
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by cassini »

This happens when a NamecoinCore client sends an inv message containing a type 3 vector (MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK) to a Namecoin-Qt or namecoind client.
EDIT: SPV clients also send out MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK requests.

Namecoin Core (and Bitcoin Core) inventory vector types:
https://github.com/domob1812/namecore/b ... col.h#L144

Namecoin-Qt/namecoind inventory vector types:
https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/bl ... net.h#L374


I can reproduce this error by sending a MSG_FILTERED_BLOCK inv message to my Namecoin-Qt client. The debug.log then shows:

Code: Select all

************************
EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range       
CInv::GetCommand() : type=3 unknown type       
namecoin in ProcessMessage()
Very ugly effect. Not only that it creates the popup window you mentioned but also that the getinfo command comes up with this error forever:

Code: Select all

{
"version" : 38000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 219628,
...
"errors" : "EXCEPTION: St12out_of_range \nCInv::GetCommand() : type=3 unknown type \nnamecoin in ProcessMessage() \n"
}
@domob: Do you see a chance we can "hide" these type-3 vectors in a way that the standard clients ignore them, or do we need to release a 0.3.81 version in order to get rid of these error messages?

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by phelix »

Hmm I never got it so far...
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

cassini
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by cassini »

phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by phelix »

cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.
If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either :mrgreen: Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

cassini
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by cassini »

phelix wrote:Did not find a way to turn it on either
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Microsoft+Windows+ ... n+messages ;)
phelix wrote:different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers
This is something that springs to mind, but then the error message (see OP) shouldn't turn up in the first place!?

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by biolizard89 »

phelix wrote:
cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.
If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either :mrgreen: Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?
Wouldn't that be a potential security issue if the network is naturally segregated by version? Might make it easier to fork the chain?
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by phelix »

cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Did not find a way to turn it on either
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Microsoft+Windows+ ... n+messages ;)
Hehe, naah, I had checked on this.
biolizard89 wrote:
phelix wrote:
cassini wrote:
phelix wrote:Hmm I never got it so far...
AFAIK there is an option in the MS-Win Control Panel for turning on/off pop-up notifications. I guess you turned it off.
If I did I am not aware of it. Did not find a way to turn it on either :mrgreen: Could it be the different versions mostly stick to themselves due to the way they look for peers?
Wouldn't that be a potential security issue if the network is naturally segregated by version? Might make it easier to fork the chain?
Potentially... Can someone on namecore run a peerinfo ?
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by biolizard89 »

Here is the output of getpeerinfo on a fairly recent Namecoin Core build:

Code: Select all

[
{
"id" : 40,
"addr" : "184.72.238.42:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:38366",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025173,
"lastrecv" : 1426025198,
"bytessent" : 6837,
"bytesrecv" : 90924,
"conntime" : 1426024211,
"timeoffset" : 119,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 35000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221398,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 41,
"addr" : "85.139.163.132:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:9797",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025175,
"lastrecv" : 1426025189,
"bytessent" : 1997,
"bytesrecv" : 9078,
"conntime" : 1426024454,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 42,
"addr" : "5.45.108.219:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:5093",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025189,
"bytessent" : 2205,
"bytesrecv" : 9176,
"conntime" : 1426024791,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37200,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 43,
"addr" : "54.213.254.200:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:48960",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025172,
"lastrecv" : 1426025173,
"bytessent" : 2266,
"bytesrecv" : 10703,
"conntime" : 1426024805,
"timeoffset" : -34,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37500,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 44,
"addr" : "72.51.28.206:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:44701",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025187,
"bytessent" : 1986,
"bytesrecv" : 8844,
"conntime" : 1426024806,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37601,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 45,
"addr" : "173.23.166.47:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:22095",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025170,
"lastrecv" : 1426025187,
"bytessent" : 1742,
"bytesrecv" : 7664,
"conntime" : 1426024808,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 46,
"addr" : "50.116.41.120:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:41517",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025185,
"lastrecv" : 1426025185,
"bytessent" : 2138,
"bytesrecv" : 9992,
"conntime" : 1426024809,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 38000,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : 221399,
"synced_blocks" : 221399,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
},
{
"id" : 47,
"addr" : "128.199.64.80:8334",
"addrlocal" : "129.15.64.249:15831",
"services" : "0000000000000001",
"lastsend" : 1426025178,
"lastrecv" : 1426025194,
"bytessent" : 1864,
"bytesrecv" : 4440,
"conntime" : 1426024818,
"timeoffset" : -1,
"pingtime" : 0.00000000,
"version" : 37500,
"subver" : "",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 221399,
"banscore" : 0,
"synced_headers" : -1,
"synced_blocks" : -1,
"inflight" : [
],
"whitelisted" : false
}
]
There are plenty of peers with old versions, so I think we're fine (for now). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it will stay fine when Namecoin Core and NamecoinQ clients exist in equal amounts on the network. As long as a single link exists in the peer graph, a fork shouldn't happen.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: st12out_of_range

Post by phelix »

biolizard89 wrote:Here is the output of getpeerinfo on a fairly recent Namecoin Core build:

Code: Select all

...
There are plenty of peers with old versions, so I think we're fine (for now). Your guess is as good as mine as to whether it will stay fine when Namecoin Core and NamecoinQ clients exist in equal amounts on the network. As long as a single link exists in the peer graph, a fork shouldn't happen.
Thanks. Looks good.

Does this error print something in the debug.log? I can't find anything like "st12" in my logs...
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

Post Reply