@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>
Remote node may (incorrectly) not send announcement_signatures when
reconnecting, so we we use a copy and can still re-announce.
Also checks that we still send our announcement_signatures when reconnecting.
The old value of 1000 sat was too small to cover the dust reserves.
This lead to the situation when trying to open a channel with minimal
amount, the channels got refused because they were not able cover the
commitment fees.
For this reason the minimal capacity should be increased to i.e. 10k
satoshi, as the technical minimum that also accounts for fees and
reserves is somewhere around 6k sat.
New name is less confusing, and most people should be transitioning to
listpays rather than this anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We want to disallow using unconfirmed outputs by default, so making the
default 1 confirmation seems a good idea. This also matches `bitcoind`s
minimum confirmation requirement.
Arming however breaks some of our tests, so I used `minconf=0` for the
breaking tests and added a new test specifically for the `minconf` parameter
for `fundchannel`.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
An uncommitted channel should not keep the peer in the db, since the
uncommitted channel isn't in the db itself.
Fixes: #2367
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
- result fundchannel command now depends on successful or failed broadcast of the funding tx
- failure returns error code FUNDING_BROADCAST_FAIL
- don't fail the channel when broadcast failed, but keep in CHANNELD_AWAITING_LOCKIN
- after fixing the initial broadcast failure, the user could manually rebroadcast the tx and
keep the channel
openingd/opening_funder_finished:
- broadcast_tx callback function now handles both success and failure
jsonrpc: added error code FUNDING_BROADCAST_FAIL
manpage: added error code returned by fundchannel command
This makes the user more aware of broadcast failure, so it hopefully doesn't
try to broadcast new tx's that depend on its change_outputs. Some users have reported (see
issue #2171) a whole sequence of fundings failing, because each funding was using the change
output of the previous one, which would not confirm.
We actually produce an invalid JSON error at the moment: bitcoin-cli
complains "JSON value is not an integer as expected" rather than returning
the given error. Make our error a valid JSON RPC error.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Spurious errors were occuring around checking the provided
current commitment point from the peer on reconnect when
option_data_loss_protect is enabled. The problem was that
we were using an inaccurate measure to screen for which
commitment point to compare the peer's provided one to.
This fixes the problem with screening, plus makes our
data_loss test a teensy bit more robust.
Currently only used by gossipd for channel elimination.
Also print them in canonical form (/[01]), so tests need to be
changed.
Suggested-by: @cdecker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We have an incompatibility with lnd it seems: I've lost channels on
reconnect with 'sync error'. Since I never got this code to be reliable,
disable it for next release since I suspect it's our fault :(
And reenable the check which didn't work, for others to untangle.
I couldn't get option_data_loss_protect to be reliable, and I disabled
the check. This was a mistake, I should have either spent even more
time trying to get to the bottom of this (especially, writing test
vectors for the spec and testing against other implementations).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Because gossip in this case takes up to a minute, this test took 10
minutes. The workaround is to do the waiting-for-gossip all at once.
Now it takes 362 seconds.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
After Ubuntu 18.10 upgrade, lots of new flake8 warnings.
$ flake8 --version:
3.5.0 (mccabe: 0.6.1, pycodestyle: 2.4.0, pyflakes: 1.6.0) CPython 3.6.7rc1 on Linux
Note it seems that W503 warned about line breaks before binary
operators, and W504 complains about them after. I prefer W504, so
disable W503.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
When the wrong key is used, the remote end simply hangs up.
We used to get a random errno, which tends to be "Operation now in progress."
Now it's defined to be 0, detect and provide a better error.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We don't save them to the database, so fix things up as we load them.
Next patch will actually save them into the db, and this will become
COMPAT code.
Also: call htlc_in_check() with NULL on db load, as otherwise it aborts
internally.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Usually, we only close an incoming HTLC once the outgoing HTLC is completely
resolved. However, we short-cut this in the FULFILL case: we have the
preimage, so might as well use it immediately (in fact, we wait for it to
be committed, but we don't need to in theory).
As a side-effect of this, our assumption that every outgoing HTLC has
a corresponding incoming HTLC is incorrect, and this test (xfail) tickles
that corner case.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Christian Decker
lisa neigut
darosior
Rusty Russell
Simon Vrouwe
Michael Schmoock