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>
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>
I thought LND had a bug, but turns out it doesn't like out-of-order
short_channel_ids: in fact, the spec says they have to be in order!
This means we use uintmap instead of a htable for unknown_scids and
stale_scids so they're nicely ordered.
But our nodes-missing-announcements probe is harder since they can
also contain duplicates: we switch that to iterate through channels
rather than nodes.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It usually means we're missing something, but there's no way to ask what.
Simply start a broad scid probe.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's simple: if we wouldn't accept the timestamp we see, don't put
the channel in the stale_scid_map.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We eliminate the "need peer" states and instead check if the
random_peer_softref has been cleared.
We can also unify our restart handlers for all these cases; even the
probe_scids case, by giving gossip credit for the scids as they come
in (at a discount, since scids are 8 bytes vs the ~200 bytes for
normal gossip messages).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This asks peers to append the timestamps or checksums: if it has
gossip_query_ex support, it will, otherwise it's ignored.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If the peer supports `gossip_query_ex` we can use query_flags to simply
request the node_announcements when probing for nodes, rather than
getting everything. If a peer doesn't support `gossip_query_ex` then
it's harmless to add it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We pick some nodes which don't seem to have node_announcements and we
ask a channel associated with them. Again, if this reveals more
node_announcements, we probe for twice as many next time.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If we have any unknown short_channel_ids, we ask a random peer for
those channels. Once it responds, we probe again for a small random
range in case more are missing, again enlarging if we find some.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Instead of a linear array which is fairly inefficient if it turns out
we know nothing at all.
We remove the gossip_missing() call by changing the api to
remove_unknown_scid() to include a flag as to whether the scid turned
out to be real or not.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Once we've finished streaming gossip from the first peer, we ask a
random peer (maybe the same one) for all short_channel_ids in the last
6 blocks from the latest channel we know about.
If this reveals new channels we didn't know about, we expand the probe
by a factor of 2 each time.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The seeker starts by asking a peer (the first peer!) for all gossip
since a minute before the modified time of the gossip store.
This algorithm is enhanced in successive patches.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since we have to validate, there can be a delay (and peer might
vanish) between receiving the gossip and actually confirming it, hence
the use of softref.
We will use this information to check that the peers are making progress
as we start asking them for specific information.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We do this by keeping a current and an old map, and moving the current to old
every hour or 10,000 entries.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This encoding scheme is no longer just used for short_channel_ids, so make
the names more generic.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I was seeing some accidental pruning under load / Travis, and in
particular we stopped accepting channel_updates because they were 103
seconds old. But making it too long makes the prune test untenable,
so restore a separate flag that this test can use.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The only real change is dump_gossip() used to call
maybe_create_next_scid_reply(), but now I've simply renamed
that to maybe_send_query_responses() and we call it directly.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The first one means we don't discard channels just because we're not
synced, and the second is implied by the spec: don't accept
channel_announcement if the channel isn't 6 deep. Since LND defers in
such cases, we do too (unless it's newer than the current block, in
which case we simply discard). Otherwise there's a risk that a slow
node might discard valid gossip.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This will let gossipd be more intelligent about gossiping before we're
synced, and also it might know how far behind we are.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
If you send a message which simply changes timestamp and signature, we
drop it. You shouldn't be doing that, and the door to ignoring them
was opened by by option_gossip_query_ex, which would allow clients to
ignore updates with the same checksum.
This is more aggressive at reducing spam messages, but we allow refreshes
(to be conservative, we allow them even when 1/2 of the way through the
refresh period).
I dropped the now-unnecessary sleep from test_gossip_pruning, too.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We've been slack, but it's going to be important for testing
ratelimiting. And it currently has a minor memory leak.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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>
`make update-mocks` is usually run in DEVELOPER mode, but then it includes
definitions for functions which aren't declared in non-DEVELOPER mode.
We hacked this in a few places, but it's fragile, and worst, now we
have EXPERIMENTAL_FEATURES as well, it's complex.
Instead, declare developer-only functions (but don't define them).
This is a bit more awkward if you accidentally use one in
non-DEVELOPER code (link error rather than compile error), but makes
autogenerating test mocks much easier.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This clarifies things a fair bit: we simply add and remove from the
gossip_store directly.
Before this series: (--disable-developer, -Og)
store_load_msec:20669-20902(20822.2+/-82)
vsz_kb:439704-439712(439706+/-3.2)
listnodes_sec:0.890000-1.000000(0.92+/-0.04)
listchannels_sec:11.960000-13.380000(12.576+/-0.49)
routing_sec:3.070000-5.970000(4.814+/-1.2)
peer_write_all_sec:28.490000-30.580000(29.532+/-0.78)
After: (--disable-developer, -Og)
store_load_msec:19722-20124(19921.6+/-1.4e+02)
vsz_kb:288320
listnodes_sec:0.860000-0.980000(0.912+/-0.056)
listchannels_sec:10.790000-12.260000(11.65+/-0.5)
routing_sec:2.540000-4.950000(4.262+/-0.88)
peer_write_all_sec:17.570000-19.500000(18.048+/-0.73)
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Keeping the uintmap ordering all the broadcastable messages is expensive:
130MB for the million-channels project. But now we delete obsolete entries
from the store, we can have the per-peer daemons simply read that sequentially
and stream the gossip itself.
This is the most primitive version, where all gossip is streamed;
successive patches will bring back proper handling of timestamp filtering
and initial_routing_sync.
We add a gossip_state field to track what's happening with our gossip
streaming: it's initialized in gossipd, and currently always set, but
once we handle timestamps the per-peer daemon may do it when the first
filter is sent.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We use the high bit of the length field: this way we can still check
that the checksums are valid on deleted fields.
Once this is done, serially reading the gossip_store file will result
in a complete, ordered, minimal gossip broadcast. Also, the horrible
corner case where we might try to delete things from the store during
load time is completely gone: we only load non-deleted things.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We're about to bump version again, and the code to upgrade it was
quite hairy (and buggy!). It's not worthwhile for such a
poorly-tested path: I will just add code to limit how much incoming
gossip we get to avoid flooding when we upgrade, however.
I also use a modern gossip_store version in our test_gossip_store_load
test, instead of relying on the upgrade path.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
They're really gossipd-internal, and we don't want per-peer daemons
to confuse them with normal updates.
I don't bump the gossip_store version; that's coming with another update
anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
trueptolemy
lisa neigut
darosior