invalid key: expected only one key in keyring

[gaia]

On 0.12.2, keys successfully imported using

tmkms yubihsm keys import -i 4 -l "label" -t json secrets/priv_validator_key.json

do not work at signing time, giving this error:

"invalid key: expected only one key in keyring"

All previously imported keys work/sign fine. In keys list, the ones that are hex strings are the newly imported ones (0004 & 0009), which do not work:

[tony-iqlusion]

Is it possible you have multiple consensus keys configured for the same chain?

[gaia]

cleaned up all asymmetric-keys then tried:

$ tmkms yubihsm keys import -i 3 -l "quicksilver" -t json secrets/priv_validator_key.json
    Imported key 0x0003
$ tmkms yubihsm keys list
Listing keys in YubiHSM #xxxxxxxxxxx:
- 0x0003: [cons] FB74E2913DEC8BCAE60551C558948E8D64F382C998DDD3B316E4AFE33DE91B5E
   label: "quicksilver"

[tony-iqlusion]

Cool, yeah it's not a great error message but otherwise it seems like that was the problem?

[gaia]

tmkms::commands::start: tmkms 0.12.2 starting up...
tmkms::keyring: [keyring:yubihsm] added consensus Ed25519 key: quickvalconspub1
tmkms::connection::tcp: KMS node ID: 9...
tmkms::session: [quicksilver-1@tcp://a.b.c.d:26658] connected to validator successfully
2023-10-13T22:04:41.639895Z  WARN tmkms::session: [quicksilver-1@tcp://a.b.c.d:26658]: unverified validator peer ID! (1...)
tmkms::session: [quicksilver-1@tcp://a.b.c.d:26658] signed PreCommit:<nil> at h/r/s 4135053/0/2 (104 ms)
tmkms::session: [quicksilver-1@tcp://a.b.c.d:26658] signed PreVote:102122D292 at h/r/s 4135054/0/1 (126 ms)
tmkms::session: [quicksilver-1@tcp://a.b.c.d:26658] signed PreCommit:102122D292 at h/r/s 4135054/0/2 (126 ms)

and

quicksilverd tendermint show-validator | jq .key == cat priv_validator_key.json | jq .pub_key.value

from where the only assymetric key present in the YubiHSM was imported.

on the node side,

{"level":"error","module":"consensus","err":"error adding vote","height":4135063,"msg_type":"*consensus.VoteMessage","peer":"","round":0,"time":"2023-10-13T15:05:40-07:00","message":"failed to process message"}
{"level":"error","module":"consensus","err":"error adding vote","height":4135063,"msg_type":"*consensus.VoteMessage","peer":"","round":0,"time":"2023-10-13T15:05:40-07:00","message":"failed to process message"}
{"level":"error","module":"consensus","err":"error adding vote","height":4135064,"msg_type":"*consensus.VoteMessage","peer":"","round":0,"time":"2023-10-13T15:05:46-07:00","message":"failed to process message"}
{"level":"error","module":"consensus","err":"error adding vote","height":4135064,"msg_type":"*consensus.VoteMessage","peer":"","round":0,"time":"2023-10-13T15:05:46-07:00","message":"failed to process message"}

pls ignore that the top snippet is on block 4135054 and the bottom on 4135053+. the errors were consistent.

[tony-iqlusion]

Okay, well that seems unrelated to this issue which I noticed duplicates #500.

If you're still having trouble, can you open a new issue? Thanks!