We don't need to keep this around any more: by handing it to
subdaemons we ensure we'll close it if the peer disconnects, and we
also add code to get a new one on reconnection.
Because getting a gossip_fd is async, we re-check the peer state after
it gets back. This is kind of annoying: perhaps if we were to hand
the reconnected peer through gossipd (with a flag to immediately
return it) we could get the gossip fd that way and unify the paths?
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
At the moment, master simply keeps the gossip fd open when peer
disconnects. That's inefficient, and wrong anyway (it may want a
complete new sync, or may not, but we'll currently send all the
messages including stale ones).
This interface will be required for restart anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
With no async calls left, we can just use a stack variable for the fd.
And we're now *always* in the hands of some daemon, unless we're
disconnected, so owner is only NULL in that case.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We had a terrible hack in gossip when a peer didn't exist. Formalize
a pattern when code+200 is a failure (with no fds passed), and use it
here.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This matters in one case: channeld receiving a bad message is a
permenant failure, whereas losing a connection is transient.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Like the fd, it's only useful when the peer is not in a daemon, so we
free & NULL it when that happens.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We need to do this on every connection, whether reconnecting or not,
so it makes sense for the handshake daemon to handle it and return
the feature fields.
Longer term I'm considering having the handshake daemon handle the
listening and connecting, and simply hand the fds back once the peers
are ready.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We currently create a peer struct, then complete handshake to find out
who it is. This means we have a half-formed peer, and worse: if it's
a reconnect we get two peers the same.
Add an explicit 'struct connection' for the handshake phase, and
construct a 'struct peer' once that's done.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rather a big commit, but I couldn't figure out how to split it
nicely. It introduces a new message from the channel to the master
signaling that the channel has been announced, so that the master can
take care of announcing the node itself. A provisorial announcement is
created and passed to the HSM, which signs it and passes it back to
the master. Finally the master injects it into gossipd which will take
care of broadcasting it.
Since we now use the short_channel_id to identify the next hop we need
to resolve the channel_id to the pubkey of the next hop. This is done
by calling out to `gossipd` and stuffing the necessary information
into `htlc_end` and recovering it from there once we receive a reply.
The new onion uses the `channel_id` instead of the `node_id` of the
next hop to identify where to forward the payment. So we return the
exact channel chosen by the routing algo, to avoid having to look it
up again later.
Adds a new command line flag `--dev-broadcast-interval=<ms>` that
allows us to specify how often the staggered broadcast should
trigger. The value is passed down to `gossipd` via an init message.
This is mainly useful for integration tests, since we do not want to
wait forever for gossip to propagate.
If a peer dies, and then we get a reply, that can cause access after free.
The usual way to handle this is to make the request a child of the peer,
but in fact we still want to catch (and disard) it, so it's a little
more complex internally.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Copied the JSON-request parsing from `pay.c`, passing through to
`gossipd`, filling the reply with the `route_hop` serialization, and
serializing as JSON-RPC response.
The gossip subdaemon previously passed the fd after init: this is
unnecessary for peers which simply want to gossip (and not establish
channels).
Now we hand the gossip fd back with the peer fd. This adds another
error message for when we fail to create the gossip fds.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Instead of indicating where to place the fd, you say how many: the
fd array gets passed into the callback.
This is also clearer for the users.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We should check that the peer it says it's returning is under its control,
we need to take back the peer fd, and use the correct conversion routine
for the packet it sends us.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Raw crypto_state is what we send across the wire: the peer one is for
use in async crypto io routines (peer_read_message/peer_write_message).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's awkward to handle them differently. But this change means we
need to expose them to the generated code.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Now we hand peers off to the gossip daemon, to do the INIT handshake and
re-transmit/receive gossip. They may stay there forever if neither we nor
them wants to open a channel.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker