fix: remove unnecessary lock in bad sources processing

[PastaPastaPasta]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

What was done?

How Has This Been Tested?

Breaking Changes

Checklist:

Go over all the following points, and put an x in all the boxes that apply.

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have assigned this pull request to a milestone (for repository code-owners and collaborators only)

[github-actions]

✅ No Merge Conflicts Detected

This PR currently has no conflicts with other open PRs.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This change removes the acquisition of the global cs_main lock in an error handling code path within ProcessPendingInstantSendLocks. Previously, when processing bad sources from batch verification, the code would lock cs_main before iterating over batchVerifier.badSources to apply peer misbehavior penalties. The updated code performs this iteration and penalty application without acquiring the lock.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Areas requiring attention during review:
  • Verify that no data races are introduced by removing the cs_main lock acquisition on the bad sources iteration path
  • Confirm that PeerMisbehaving calls and operations on batchVerifier.badSources are safe to execute without cs_main protection
  • Check for consistency with other code paths that handle peer misbehavior to ensure uniform locking semantics

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	The description provided contains only checklist template placeholders without substantive content about the changes, testing approach, or implementation details related to the lock removal.	Add meaningful content to the description sections explaining what issue is being fixed, what changes were made, how the changes were tested, and any relevant breaking changes or side effects.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'fix: remove unnecessary lock in bad sources processing' is directly related to and accurately summarizes the main change in the changeset, which removes an unnecessary cs_main lock acquisition in the bad sources handling path.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between cb1dfa3 and 23fc177.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/instantsend/net_instantsend.cpp (0 hunks)

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• src/instantsend/net_instantsend.cpp

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (10)

• GitHub Check: arm-linux-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64_tsan-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64_ubsan-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64_fuzz-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64_sqlite-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: linux64_nowallet-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: mac-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: win64-build / Build source
• GitHub Check: Lint / Run linters

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

• Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
• Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
• Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
   | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
   Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[knst]

LGTM cb1dfa3

consider #6959 to get merged first

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please rebase.

[knst]

utACK 23fc177

[UdjinM6]

utACK 23fc177