A long time ago (93dcd5fed7), I
simplified the htlc reload code so it adjusted the amounts for HTLCs
in id order. As we presumably allowed them to be added in that order,
this avoided special-casing overflow (which was about to deliberately
be made harder by the new amount_msat code).
Unfortunately, htlc id order is not canonical, since htlc ids are
assigned consecutively in both directions! Concretely, we can have two HTLCs:
HTLC #0 LOCAL->REMOTE: 500,000,000 msat, state RCVD_REMOVE_REVOCATION
HTLC #0 REMOTE->LOCAL: 10,000 msat, state SENT_ADD_COMMIT
On a new remote-funded channel, in which we have 0 balance, these
commits *only* work in this order. Sorting by HTLC ID is not enough!
In fact, we'd have to worry about redemption order as well, as that
matters.
So, regretfully, we offset the balances halfway to UINT64_MAX, then check
they didn't underflow at the end. This loses us this one sanity check,
but that's probably OK.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Check behavior for user supplied upfront_shutdown_script via close_to
Header from folded patch 'fix__return__not__iff_well_close_to_the_provided_addr.patch':
fix: return not iff we'll close to the provided addr
I had a report of a 0.7.2 user whose node hadn't appeared on 1ml. Their
node_announcement wasn't visible to my node, either.
I suspect this is a consequence of recent version reducing the amount of
gossip they send, as well as large nodes increasingly turning off gossip
altogether from some peers (as we do). We should ignore timestamp filters
for our own channels: the easiest way to do this is to push them out
directly from gossipd (other messages are sent via the store).
We change channeld to wrap the local channel_announcements: previously
we just handed it to gossipd as for any other gossip message we received
from our peer. Now gossipd knows to push it out, as it's local.
This interferes with the logic in tests/test_misc.py::test_htlc_send_timeout
which expects the node_announcement message last, so we generalize
that too.
[ Thanks to @trueptolmy for bugfix! ]
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is mainly an internal-only change, especially since we don't
offer any globalfeatures.
However, LND (as of next release) will offer global features, and also
expect option_static_remotekey to be a *global* feature. So we send
our (merged) feature bitset as both global and local in init, and fold
those bitsets together when we get an init msg.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Command format: close id [unilateraltimeout] [destination]
Close the channel with peer {id}, forcing a unilateral
close after {unilateraltimeout} seconds if non-zero, and
the to-local output will be sent to {destination}. If
{destination} isn't specified, the default is the address
of lightningd.
Also change the pylightning:
update the `close` API to support `destination` parameter
WIRE_REQUIRED_CHANNEL_FEATURE_MISSING anticipates a glorious Wumbo future,
and is closer to correct (it's a PERM failure).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We now have a pointer to chainparams, that fails valgrind if we do anything
chain-specific before setting it.
Suggested-by: Rusty Russell <@rustyrussell>
Elements requires us to have an explicit fee output instead of bitcoin's
implied fee. We add the fee output mostly after sorting the other outputs
since that matches the behavior in elements itself.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
It's generally clearer to have simple hardcoded numbers with an
#if DEVELOPER around it, than apparent variables which aren't, really.
Interestingly, our pruning test was always kinda broken: we have to pass
two cycles, since l2 will refresh the channel once to avoid pruning.
Do the more obvious thing, and cut the network in half and check that
l1 and l3 time out.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
531c8d7d9b
In this one, we always send my_current_per_commitment_point, though it's
ignored. And we have our official feature numbers.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The largest change is inside hsmd: it hands a null per-commitment key
to the wallet to tell it to spend the to_remote output.
It can also now resolve unknown commitments, even if it doesn't have a
possible_remote_per_commitment_point from the peer.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
As per BOLT02 #message-retransmission :
if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the `channel_reestablish` it sent and received:
- MUST retransmit `funding_locked`
Rather than reaching into data structures, let them register their own
callbacks. This avoids us having to expose "memleak_remove_xxx"
functions, and call them manually.
Under the hood, this is done by having a specially-named tal child of
the thing we want to assist, containing the callback.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This removes the WIRE_FINAL_EXPIRY_TOO_SOON which leaked too much info,
and adds the blockheight to WIRE_INCORRECT_OR_UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_DETAILS.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is the normal convention for this type; it makes using converters
a little easier. See next patch.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We currently send channel_announcement as soon as we and our
peer agree it's 6 blocks deep. In theory, our other peers might
not have seen that block yet though, so delay a little.
This is mitigated by two factors:
1. lnd will stash any "not ready yet" channel_announcements anyway.
2. c-lightning doesn't enforce the 6 depth minimum at all.
We should not rely on other nodes' generosity or laxity, however!
Next release, we can start enforcing the depth limit, and maybe stashing
ones which don't quite make it (or simply enforce depth 5, not 6).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The way we build transactions, serialize them, and compute fees depends on the
chain we are working on, so let's add some context to the transactions.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
And clean up some dev ones which actually happen (mainly by calling
channel_fail_permanent which logs UNUSUAL, rather than
channel_internal_error which logs BROKEN).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If we ever do this, we'd end up with an unspendable commitment tx anyway.
It might be able to happen if we have htlcs added from the non-fee-paying
party while the fees are increased, though. But better to close the
channel and get a report about it if that happens.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We track whether each change is affordable as we go;
test_channel_drainage got us so close that the difference mattered; we
hit an assert when we tried to commit the tx and realized we couldn't
afford it.
We should not be trying to add an HTLC if it will result in the funder
being unable to afford it on either the local *or remote* commitments.
Note the test still "fails" because it refuses to send the final
payment.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subtracting both arbitrarily reduces our capacity, even for ourselves
since the routing logic uses this maximum.
I also changed 'advertise' to 'advertize', since we use american
spelling.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@pm47 gave a great bug report showing c-lightning sending the same
UPDATE_FEE over and over, with the final surprise result being that we
blamed the peer for sending us multiple empty commits!
The spam is caused by us checking "are we at the desired feerate?" but
then if we can't afford the desired feerate, setting the feerate we
can afford, even though it's a duplicate. Doing the feerate cap before
we test if it's what we have already eliminates this.
But the empty commits was harder to find: it's caused by a heuristic in
channel_rcvd_revoke_and_ack:
```
/* For funder, ack also means time to apply new feerate locally. */
if (channel->funder == LOCAL &&
(channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw
!= channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw)) {
status_trace("Applying feerate %u to LOCAL (was %u)",
channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw,
channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw);
channel->view[LOCAL].feerate_per_kw
= channel->view[REMOTE].feerate_per_kw;
channel->changes_pending[LOCAL] = true;
}
```
We assume we never send duplicates, so we detect an otherwise-empty
change using the difference in feerates. If we don't set this flag,
we will get upset if we receive a commitment_signed since we consider
there to be no changes to commit.
This is actually hard to test: the previous commit adds a test which
spams update_fee and doesn't trigger this bug, because both sides
use the same "there's nothing outstanding" logic.
Fixes: #2701
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
lisa neigut
trueptolemy
Christian Decker
darosior
Rene Pickhardt
Michael Schmoock