Min. Cost Flow does not take into account fees when computing a flow
with liquidity constraints.
This is a work-around solution that reduces the amount on every route to
respect the liquidity bound. The deficity in the delivered amount is
solved by running MCF once again.
Changes:
1. the function `flow_complete` allocates amounts to send over the set of routes
computed by the MCF algorithm, but it does not allocate more than liquidity
bound of the route. For this reason `minflow` returns a set of routes that
satisfy the liquidity bounds but it is not guaranteed that the total payment
reaches the destination therefore there could a deficit in the delivery:
`deficit = amount_to_deliver - delivering`.
2. in the function `add_payflows` after `minflow` returns a set of routes we
call `flows_fit_amount` that tries to a allocate the `deficit` in the routes
that the MCF have computed.
3. if the resulting flows pass all payment constraints then we update
`amount_to_deliver = amount_to_deliver - delivering`, and the loop
repeats as long as `amount_to_deliver` is not zero.
In other words, the excess amount, beyond the liquidity bound,
in the routes is removed and then we try to allocate it
into known routes, otherwise we do a whole MCF again just for the
remaining amount.
Fixes issue #6599
Adds a "canonical" error handling in the module mcf.c,
adhering to the same convention we have adopted in flow.c.
So that when a function fails it signals the caller with an invalid
return value, or bool false, and it communicates an error message.
We will get localmods from gossmods_from_listpeerchannels in the next commit,
so we need to save routehints to add to that later.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The tests will wait until it's locally enabled, but it might not have
the update in the gossip store. So have renepay enhance its local
view even if it already knows about the channel (this is correct
anyway, it just isn't very important usually).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. When we add a shadow amount, we were using the wrong channel for
the fee calculation.
2. Similarly, when calculating the delay amount.
The result is that we can get WIRE_INCORRECT_CLTV_EXPIRY repeatedly
from nodes.
Reported-by: https://github.com/SjorsFixes: #6620
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Changlog-Experimental: Fixed: `renepay` handles ctlv correctly when it varies along a path.
```
Flow 391: amount=23528000msat prob=0.000 fees=1023msat delay=140 path=-2471854x37x4/1(min=max=23528783msat)->-2414928x98x0/0->
Flow 391: Failure of 23529023msat for 2471854x37x4/1 capacity [23528783msat,23528783msat] -> [23528783msat,23528783msat]
```
We added fees and went over capacity! This screams of a deeper logic
bug, but renepay is experimental and it's release day so hack around
it for now...
Reported-by: https://github.com/daywalker90
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Eduardo is on holiday right now, but he pinged me asking for this. It
makes some sense, and using half the *failed value* covers the case where
it's less than half what we expected.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It now looks like (for test_hardmpp):
```
# we have computed a set of 1 flows with probability 0.328, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 1: amount=1800000000msat prob=0.328 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 1: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 1: Failure of 1800000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,3000000000msat] -> [0msat,1799999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.115, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 2: amount=500000000msat prob=0.475 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1->-103x4x0/1->
# Flow 3: amount=1300000000msat prob=0.242 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1799999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 3: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 3: Failure of 1300000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,1799999999msat] -> [0msat,1299999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.084, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 4: amount=260000000msat prob=0.467 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(500000000msat in 1 htlcs,min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1(500000000msat in 1 htlcs)->-103x4x0/1(500000000msat in 1 htlcs)->
# Flow 5: amount=1040000000msat prob=0.179 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1299999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 5: Failed at node #1 (WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE): failed: WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE (reply from remote)
# Flow 5: Failure of 1040000000msat for 103x5x0/0 capacity [0msat,1299999999msat] -> [0msat,1039999999msat]
# we have computed a set of 2 flows with probability 0.052, fees 0msat and delay 23
# Flow 6: amount=120000000msat prob=0.494 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x6x0/0(760000000msat in 2 htlcs,min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x1x0/1(760000000msat in 2 htlcs)->-103x4x0/1(760000000msat in 2 htlcs)->
# Flow 7: amount=920000000msat prob=0.105 fees=0msat delay=12 path=-103x2x0/1(min=max=4294967295msat)->-103x5x0/0(max=1039999999msat)->-103x3x0/1->
# Flow 7: Success
```
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I am doing to add more more debugging, but sent here is 0.
Document that clearly, and put a real value in sent.
Also: since we already sub 1 msat from x, amount_msat_less_eq should
be amount_msat_less (it may be equal to our min, in theory).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
```
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x7fa921f8ffcf ???
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: ./signal/../sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/libc_sigaction.c:0
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x55b3bb54e6d3 pay_flow_finished_adding_gossip
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: plugins/renepay/pay_flow.c:675
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: 0x55b3bb54af25 addgossip_done
Aug 18 13:45:13 lightningd: plugins/renepay/pay.c:171
```
The assert we fail is almost certainly due to the flow being freed:
```
struct pf_result *pay_flow_finished_adding_gossip(struct pay_flow *pf)
{
assert(pf->state == PAY_FLOW_FAILED_GOSSIP_PENDING);
```
Reported-by: https://github.com/daywalker90Fixes: #6567
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
There's a fascinating bug report which suggests this happens on local channels,
implying spendable_msat is wrong?
See-also: #6567
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Compiler can't tell that we always set have_state[PAY_FLOW_FAILED_FINAL]
when we set this:
```
plugins/renepay/payment.c: In function ‘payment_reconsider’:
plugins/renepay/payment.c:287:25: error: ‘final_error’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
287 | payment_fail(payment, final_error, "%s", final_msg);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
plugins/renepay/payment.c:194:30: note: ‘final_error’ was declared here
194 | enum jsonrpc_errcode final_error, ecode;
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
plugins/renepay/payment.c:287:25: error: ‘final_msg’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
287 | payment_fail(payment, final_error, "%s", final_msg);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
plugins/renepay/payment.c:195:21: note: ‘final_msg’ was declared here
195 | const char *final_msg;
| ^~~~~~~~~
```
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We cannot carry pointers into the gossmap across localmod addition
or removal.
We didn't notice because the map->chan_arr is not normally resized,
but if we change gossmap.c line 689 to only allocate 1 to start, we see this:
```
VALGRIND=1 valgrind -q --error-exitcode=7 --track-origins=yes --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes --errors-for-leak-kinds=all plugins/renepay/test/run-mcf > /dev/null
==2349744== Invalid read of size 4
==2349744== at 0x1788C2: gossmap_chan_scid (gossmap.c:558)
==2349744== by 0x1872A2: get_chan_extra_half_by_chan (flow.c:346)
==2349744== by 0x187797: remove_completed_flow (flow.c:488)
==2349744== by 0x187927: remove_completed_flow_set (flow.c:518)
==2349744== by 0x18DF4D: main (run-mcf.c:393)
==2349744== Address 0x4b80f38 is 88 bytes inside a block of size 136 free'd
==2349744== at 0x4848C63: realloc (in /usr/libexec/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==2349744== by 0x173D71: tal_resize_ (tal.c:744)
==2349744== by 0x177E36: next_free_chan (gossmap.c:336)
==2349744== by 0x177ED3: new_channel (gossmap.c:351)
==2349744== by 0x178441: add_channel (gossmap.c:458)
==2349744== by 0x1798D4: gossmap_apply_localmods (gossmap.c:904)
==2349744== by 0x18DEDB: main (run-mcf.c:388)
==2349744== Block was alloc'd at
==2349744== at 0x4848C63: realloc (in /usr/libexec/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==2349744== by 0x173D71: tal_resize_ (tal.c:744)
==2349744== by 0x177E36: next_free_chan (gossmap.c:336)
==2349744== by 0x177ED3: new_channel (gossmap.c:351)
==2349744== by 0x178441: add_channel (gossmap.c:458)
==2349744== by 0x178B6D: map_catchup (gossmap.c:635)
==2349744== by 0x178F45: load_gossip_store (gossmap.c:697)
==2349744== by 0x179D71: gossmap_load (gossmap.c:978)
==2349744== by 0x18D22F: main (run-mcf.c:295)
```
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's not there if it's a local error:
```
{
"code": 202,
"message": "Parsing '{message:%,data:{erring_index:%,failcode:%,raw_message:': object does not have member raw_message"
}
```
Reported-by: https://github.com/daywalker90Fixes: #6553
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Unifies the pay_flow resolve functions, and moves remove_htlc_payflow
and commit_htlc_payflow to the top.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We want to make sure that on every path, we terminate the flow. The simplest
way to do this is encourage the pattern "return pay_flow_xxx(flow)".
Indeed, this caught a few places I missed!
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The main function here is payment_reconsider:
* Each payment has a list of pay_flow.
* This is populated in try_paying(), calling add_payflows & sendpay_new_flows.
* When we get a notification, we resolve a pay_flow using one of the pay_flow_failedxxx
or pay_flow_succeeded functions.
* They call payment_reconsider() which cleans up finished flows decides what to do:
often calling try_paying again.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's not required, but it should be there so we might as well use it
(though we sometimes don't put one in, esp if it's a private channel).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Lagrang3
Lagrang3
Rusty Russell