All other users of read_all(...) check the return value:
```
hsmd/hsm.c: if (!read_all(fd, &secretstuff.hsm_secret, sizeof(secretstuff.hsm_secret)))
test/test_protocol.c: if (!read_all(fd, p, len))
wire/wire_sync.c: if (!read_all(fd, &len, sizeof(len)))
wire/wire_sync.c: if (!read_all(fd, msg, wirelen_to_cpu(len)))
```
To avoid everything pulling in HTLCs stuff to the opening daemon, we
split the channel and commit_tx routines into initial_channel and
initial_commit_tx (no HTLC support) and move full HTLC supporting versions
into channeld.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
So if there are no HTLCs, and the receiver can't spend anyway, don't
sign. This has the added benefit that no two signed commitment
transactions will ever be identical (the revocation preimage changes).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We keep a "database" for each side's persistent state. Upon restart,
each side tells the other where it was up to, in terms of the number
of commit and revocation messages it receives.
Because only one update can be in flight at a time, we can tell w
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is simpler for database representation, and also allows simple
bit-tests for what is happening to a HTLC (eg. am I committed to it?
Are you? etc.)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Laolu pointed out that we can't have multiple in flight, since we can't
sign without knowing the next revocation preimage.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Add "nocommitwait" for the two cases we test that, otherwise add
assertions that we never end up dealing with anything other than
the previous commit.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since our pre-change state is always the same as the previous step's
post-change state, we can simply keep a pointer, with a dummy empty
state for the initial one.
We could function-wrap it, but this change is even simpler.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This finished the previous patch by simply copying funding_next to funding
when we want to apply changes.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This makes it easier to test for validity, though we still double-check
that a change doesn't overlap previous changes.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We simply record how many fee changes there are, rather than supporting
a particular level.
Fees are tricky: it's a noop to apply them when incoming, but we apply them
when they've been acked. Unlike HTLC modifications, which are symmetric,
fee updates only apply when returning to the originating node.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
practicalswift
Rusty Russell