fix: remove cs_main from MaybePunishNodeForTx, missing changes from #19607

[knst]

Issue being fixed or feature implemented

Helper MaybePunishNodeForTx has been introduced when bitcoin#19607 is done, it caused missing changes.

What was done?

Removed cs_main from MaybePunishNodeForTx

How Has This Been Tested?

N/A

Breaking Changes

N/A

Checklist:

• 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]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Repository UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 8485e8e9-9f14-4166-8fd2-3a90237be035

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between beca567 and eb769ab.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• src/net_processing.cpp

---

Walkthrough

This pull request removes a scoped LOCK(cs_main) block from the TX_CONSENSUS error handling path in PeerManagerImpl::MaybePunishNodeForTx. The change simplifies the code by eliminating the explicit lock scope around the Misbehaving(nodeid, 100) call, allowing the function to call and return directly. This suggests either the lock is no longer necessary at this location or is handled internally by the callee.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• UdjinM6
• PastaPastaPasta

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: removing cs_main from MaybePunishNodeForTx as missing changes from #19607, which aligns with the code modifications shown in the raw summary.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, explaining the issue (missing changes from bitcoin#19607), what was done (removed cs_main), and providing context about the helper function.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ 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.}

[thepastaclaw]

Code Review

Small, correct cleanup completing the bitcoin#19607 backport. Removes a stale LOCK(cs_main) around Misbehaving(nodeid, 100) in MaybePunishNodeForTx. Misbehaving() is internally guarded by peer->m_misbehavior_mutex and does not require cs_main; the sibling MaybePunishNodeForBlock already calls it the same way. Both reviewers (Claude and Codex, plus backport specialists) independently reached the same conclusion with no findings.

[PastaPastaPasta]

utACK eb769ab