Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#29370: assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values

9d9a7458a2570f7db56ab626b22010591089c312 assumeutxo: Remove BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID flag (Ryan Ofsky)
ef174e9ed21c08f38e5d4b537b6decfd1f646db9 test: assumeutxo snapshot block CheckBlockIndex crash test (Ryan Ofsky)
0391458d767b842a7925785a7053400c0e1cb55a test: assumeutxo stale block CheckBlockIndex crash test (Ryan Ofsky)
ef29c8b662309a438121a83f27fd7bdd1779700c assumeutxo: Get rid of faked nTx and nChainTx values (Ryan Ofsky)
9b97d5bbf980d657a277c85d113c2ae3e870e0ec doc: Improve comments describing setBlockIndexCandidates checks (Ryan Ofsky)
0fd915ee6bef63bb360ccc5c039a3c11676c38e3 validation: Check GuessVerificationProgress is not called with disconnected block (Ryan Ofsky)
63e8fc912c21a2f5b47e8eab10fb13c604afed85 ci: add getchaintxstats ubsan suppressions (Ryan Ofsky)
f252e687ec94b6ccafb5bc44b7df3daeb473fdea assumeutxo test: Add RPC test for fake nTx and nChainTx values (Ryan Ofsky)

Pull request description:

  The `PopulateAndValidateSnapshot` function introduced in f6e2da5fb7c6406c37612c838c998078ea8d2252 from #19806 has been setting fake `nTx` and `nChainTx` values that can show up in RPC results (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29328) and make `CBlockIndex` state hard to reason about, because it is difficult to know whether the values are real or fake.

  Revert to previous behavior of setting `nTx` and `nChainTx` to 0 when the values are unknown, instead of faking them. Also drop no-longer needed `BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID` flag.

  Dropping the faked values also fixes assert failures in the `CheckBlockIndex` `(pindex->nChainTx == pindex->nTx + prev_chain_tx)` check that could happen previously if forked or out-of-order blocks before the snapshot got submitted while the snapshot was being validated. The PR includes two commits adding tests for these failures and describing them in detail.

  Compatibility note: This change could cause new `-checkblockindex` failures if a snapshot was loaded by a previous version of Bitcoin Core and not fully validated, because fake `nTx` values will have been saved to the block index. It would be pretty easy to avoid these failures by adding some compatibility code to `LoadBlockIndex` and changing `nTx` values from 1 to 0 when they are fake (when `(pindex->nStatus & BLOCK_VALID_MASK) < BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS`), but a little simpler not to worry about being compatible in this case.

ACKs for top commit:
  Sjors:
    re-ACK 9d9a7458a2570f7db56ab626b22010591089c312
  achow101:
    ACK 9d9a7458a2570f7db56ab626b22010591089c312
  mzumsande:
    Tested ACK 9d9a7458a2570f7db56ab626b22010591089c312
  maflcko:
    ACK 9d9a7458a2570f7db56ab626b22010591089c312 🎯

Tree-SHA512: b1e1e2731ec36be30d5f5914042517219378fc31486674030c29d9c7488ed83fb60ba7095600f469dc32f0d8ba79c49ff7706303006507654e1762f26ee416e0

2 files changed, 16 insertions, 22 deletions

diff --git a/src/test/util/chainstate.h b/src/test/util/chainstate.h
index e2a88eacdd..ff95e64b7e 100644
--- a/src/test/util/chainstate.h
+++ b/src/test/util/chainstate.h
@@ -91,13 +91,16 @@ CreateAndActivateUTXOSnapshot(
             // these blocks instead
             CBlockIndex *pindex = orig_tip;
             while (pindex && pindex != chain.m_chain.Tip()) {
-                pindex->nStatus &= ~BLOCK_HAVE_DATA;
-                pindex->nStatus &= ~BLOCK_HAVE_UNDO;
-                // We have to set the ASSUMED_VALID flag, because otherwise it
-                // would not be possible to have a block index entry without HAVE_DATA
-                // and with nTx > 0 (since we aren't setting the pruned flag);
-                // see CheckBlockIndex().
-                pindex->nStatus |= BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID;
+                // Remove all data and validity flags by just setting
+                // BLOCK_VALID_TREE. Also reset transaction counts and sequence
+                // ids that are set when blocks are received, to make test setup
+                // more realistic and satisfy consistency checks in
+                // CheckBlockIndex().
+                assert(pindex->IsValid(BlockStatus::BLOCK_VALID_TREE));
+                pindex->nStatus = BlockStatus::BLOCK_VALID_TREE;
+                pindex->nTx = 0;
+                pindex->nChainTx = 0;
+                pindex->nSequenceId = 0;
                 pindex = pindex->pprev;
             }
         }
diff --git a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
index 4bbab1cdcd..4bf66a55eb 100644
--- a/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
+++ b/src/test/validation_chainstatemanager_tests.cpp
@@ -276,9 +276,6 @@ struct SnapshotTestSetup : TestChain100Setup {
             BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(
                 *node::ReadSnapshotBaseBlockhash(found),
                 *chainman.SnapshotBlockhash());
-
-            // Ensure that the genesis block was not marked assumed-valid.
-            BOOST_CHECK(!chainman.ActiveChain().Genesis()->IsAssumedValid());
         }
 
         const auto& au_data = ::Params().AssumeutxoForHeight(snapshot_height);
@@ -410,7 +407,7 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(chainstatemanager_activate_snapshot, SnapshotTestSetup)
 //! - First, verify that setBlockIndexCandidates is as expected when using a single,
 //!   fully-validating chainstate.
 //!
-//! - Then mark a region of the chain BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID and introduce a second chainstate
+//! - Then mark a region of the chain as missing data and introduce a second chainstate
 //!   that will tolerate assumed-valid blocks. Run LoadBlockIndex() and ensure that the first
 //!   chainstate only contains fully validated blocks and the other chainstate contains all blocks,
 //!   except those marked assume-valid, because those entries don't HAVE_DATA.
@@ -421,7 +418,6 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(chainstatemanager_loadblockindex, TestChain100Setup)
     Chainstate& cs1 = chainman.ActiveChainstate();
 
     int num_indexes{0};
-    int num_assumed_valid{0};
     // Blocks in range [assumed_valid_start_idx, last_assumed_valid_idx) will be
     // marked as assumed-valid and not having data.
     const int expected_assumed_valid{20};
@@ -456,35 +452,30 @@ BOOST_FIXTURE_TEST_CASE(chainstatemanager_loadblockindex, TestChain100Setup)
     reload_all_block_indexes();
     BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(cs1.setBlockIndexCandidates.size(), 1);
 
-    // Mark some region of the chain assumed-valid, and remove the HAVE_DATA flag.
+    // Reset some region of the chain's nStatus, removing the HAVE_DATA flag.
     for (int i = 0; i <= cs1.m_chain.Height(); ++i) {
         LOCK(::cs_main);
         auto index = cs1.m_chain[i];
 
-        // Blocks with heights in range [91, 110] are marked ASSUMED_VALID
+        // Blocks with heights in range [91, 110] are marked as missing data.
         if (i < last_assumed_valid_idx && i >= assumed_valid_start_idx) {
-            index->nStatus = BlockStatus::BLOCK_VALID_TREE | BlockStatus::BLOCK_ASSUMED_VALID;
+            index->nStatus = BlockStatus::BLOCK_VALID_TREE;
+            index->nTx = 0;
+            index->nChainTx = 0;
         }
 
         ++num_indexes;
-        if (index->IsAssumedValid()) ++num_assumed_valid;
 
         // Note the last fully-validated block as the expected validated tip.
         if (i == (assumed_valid_start_idx - 1)) {
             validated_tip = index;
-            BOOST_CHECK(!index->IsAssumedValid());
         }
         // Note the last assumed valid block as the snapshot base
         if (i == last_assumed_valid_idx - 1) {
             assumed_base = index;
-            BOOST_CHECK(index->IsAssumedValid());
-        } else if (i == last_assumed_valid_idx) {
-            BOOST_CHECK(!index->IsAssumedValid());
         }
     }
 
-    BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(expected_assumed_valid, num_assumed_valid);
-
     // Note: cs2's tip is not set when ActivateExistingSnapshot is called.
     Chainstate& cs2 = WITH_LOCK(::cs_main,
         return chainman.ActivateExistingSnapshot(*assumed_base->phashBlock));