fix(core/txpool): fix error pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address

[gzliudan]

Proposed changes

Symptom:

Nodes may repeatedly log "pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address" during chain import, especially when queue cleanup runs after account state changes. Such as:

ERROR[03-27|12:31:22.238] pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address address=0xb6c1f9dA410d0739efBE934b4c30dFBEE2755233
ERROR[03-27|12:31:26.073] pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address address=0xb6c1f9dA410d0739efBE934b4c30dFBEE2755233
ERROR[03-27|12:31:36.284] pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address address=0xb6c1f9dA410d0739efBE934b4c30dFBEE2755233
ERROR[03-27|12:31:56.081] pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address address=0xb6c1f9dA410d0739efBE934b4c30dFBEE2755233
ERROR[03-27|12:32:10.068] pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address address=0xb6c1f9dA410d0739efBE934b4c30dFBEE2755233

Cause:

The failure happens on block-by-block cleanup paths (notably queue-empty handling during promoteExecutables). Since block import repeatedly triggers these cleanup checks, the same address can be evaluated every round. Without an ownership guard, each round may attempt another Release for the same address and emit the same error again.

Address presence in pending/queue and reservation ownership are tracked by different states. Cleanup decisions are based on pending/queue emptiness, while ownership is tracked by the reservation tracker. If ownership was already released (or otherwise no longer held) earlier, a later cleanup round can still satisfy the pending/queue condition and attempt Release again, producing an ownership mismatch.

LegacyPool cleanup paths can call Release on addresses that are no longer owned by the current subpool, creating a reservation ownership mismatch.

Fix:

Add an ownership guard before releasing reservations, so legacypool only releases addresses it still owns. Keep release behavior unchanged for valid ownership cases.

Validation:

Add and keep a focused regression test covering the queue-empty-without-reservation scenario, and verify legacypool package tests pass.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to XDC network?
Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

• build: Changes that affect the build system or external dependencies
• ci: Changes to CI configuration files and scripts
• chore: Changes that don't change source code or tests
• docs: Documentation only changes
• feat: A new feature
• fix: A bug fix
• perf: A code change that improves performance
• refactor: A code change that neither fixes a bug nor adds a feature
• revert: Revert something
• style: Changes that do not affect the meaning of the code
• test: Adding missing tests or correcting existing tests

Impacted Components

Which parts of the codebase does this PR touch?
Put an ✅ in the boxes that apply

• Consensus
• Account
• Network
• Geth
• Smart Contract
• External components
• Not sure (Please specify below)

Checklist

Put an ✅ in the boxes once you have confirmed below actions (or provide reasons on not doing so) that

• This PR has sufficient test coverage (unit/integration test) OR I have provided reason in the PR description for not having test coverage
• Tested on a private network from the genesis block and monitored the chain operating correctly for multiple epochs.
• Provide an end-to-end test plan in the PR description on how to manually test it on the devnet/testnet.
• Tested the backwards compatibility.
• Tested with XDC nodes running this version co-exist with those running the previous version.
• Relevant documentation has been updated as part of this PR
• N/A

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: e2a947a6-c414-49f1-bd83-f5267f1c70fa

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

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.}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Fixes recurring txpool error logs (pool attempted to unreserve non-reserved address) by preventing legacypool from releasing reservations it no longer owns, and adds a regression test covering the queue-empty-without-reservation scenario.

Changes:

• Add an ownership check (Owns) to reservation handles and use it to guard reservation releases in LegacyPool.
• Centralize unreserve behavior via LegacyPool.releaseReservation and replace direct reserver.Release calls.
• Add a focused regression test ensuring stale queued tx cleanup doesn’t attempt to unreserve when the reservation is already gone.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
core/txpool/reserver.go	Extends reservation API with ownership lookup to enable safe guarded releases.
core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool.go	Routes all unreserve paths through an ownership-guarded helper to prevent erroneous releases/log spam.
core/txpool/legacypool/legacypool_test.go	Adds regression test covering queue cleanup when reservation was externally removed.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.