Reduce test_feerate_stress iterations, and simply don't run
test_pay_retry under VALGRIND with SLOW_MACHINE at all.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This prevents a gratuitous lookup of we get a late channel_announce,
but even better, it suppresses the "bad gossip" messages in case of
a late channel_update, which have plagued Travis (especially since we
got aggressive in pushing our own updates).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It currently works because we inject it so fast that it's still doing the
txout lookup, but that's about to change.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
It's less helpful, sure, but it's far better than someone
sending me their output and leaking this information.
Fixes: #3242
Reported-by: @JavierRSobrino
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If you're replaying or syncing with the blockchain, show that error
instead of 'cannot afford', in the case of not having enough utxos
to pay for a transaction. This is the 'more correct' error to show, as
there's a chance that the funds you're expecting to spend are in the
portion of the blockchain that hasn't been synced yet.
This is a better fix than doing it manually, which turned out
to do it in the wrong order (node_announcement followed by
channel_announcement) anyway.
Should fix many "Bad gossip" messages.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We're about to change it so we always send our local messages, which
breaks this test. Add a new node which doesn't have any local
messages, so the test works correctly.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Sometimes the l3 seeker asks for scids, and the reply contains the
channel which is then closed by the time it checks, so it considers
the updates bad gossip.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I was wondering why TAGS was missing some functions, and finally
tracked it down: PRINTF_FMT() confuses etags if it's at the start
of a function, and it ignores the rest of the file.
So we put PRINTF_FMT at the end, but that doesn't work for
*definitions*, only *declarations*. So we remove it from definitions
and add gratuitous declarations in the few static places.1
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I'm not sure what went wrong, but the first RC I cut had some trouble
with the tag being picked up with `git describe`, I think it was missing
a 'tag message'. I'm not sure what caused this.
This commit breaks up the first git tag procedure to have the releaser
verify that the tag command works as intended (and sensitizes them to
checking this for subsequent release cuts, if necessary)
Feerate changes are asymmetric, as they can only be sent by the funder.
For FUNDER, the remote feerate is set when upon send of
commitment_signed, and the local feerate is set on receipt of
revoke_and_ack.
For non-funder, the local feerate is set on receipt of
commitment_signed, and the remote feerate set on send of
revoke_and_ack. In our code, these two happen together.
channeld gets this right, but lightningd ignored the funder/fundee
distinction, and as a result, receipt of a commitment_signed by the
funder altered fees in the database. If there was a reconnection
event or restart, then these (incorrect) values would be used, causing
us to complain about a 'Bad commit_sig signature' and close the
channel.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
A 'Bad commit_sig signature' was reported by @Javier on Telegram and
@DarthCoin. This was between two c-lightning peers, so definitely our fault.
Analysis of this message revealed the signature was using the wrong
feerate. I finally managed to make a test case which triggered this.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Whenever we have multi-connected nodes, out-of-order gossip is possible.
In particular, if a node_announcement is 1 second fresher than the
channel_announcement, a timestamp_filter might get one and not the
other.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The case where this is needed is when the wallet had a forwarded payment
somewhere between commits 66a47d2 (which started tracking forwardings) and
d901304 (which added the `received_time` column). This just emulates the
behavior of sqlite3 for postgres as well.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <@cdecker>
Checking on whether we access a null field is ok, but should we crash right
away? Probably not. This reduces the access to a warning on sqlite3 and let's
it continue. We can look for occurences and fix them as they come up and then
re-arm the asserts once we addressed all cases.
Asking for the last few blocks was logical, but my node is missing
most gossip in practice.
For the moment, simply ask a peer for every channel it knows, once
we're started up.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
lisa neigut
Sebastian Geisler
arowser
Jorge Timón
gorazdko
darosior
Kristaps Kaupe
Christian Decker