We know the total channel capacity after checking for its existence on-chain, so
we can actually make use of that information to discard channels that don't have
a sufficient capacity anyway, reducing the number of failed attempts.
We were adding channels without their capacity, and eventually annotated them
when we exchanged `channel_update`s. This worked as long as we weren't
considering the channel capacity, but would result in local-only channels to be
unusable once we start checking.
'cursor < ser + max' isn't valid because we reduce 'max' as we go! Effectively
we'll stop once we're past halfway, which can only happen with ipv6 + a torv2
address.
Ths fix is one-line, but we rename 'max' to 'len' which makes its purpose
clearer.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
tal_count() is used where there's a type, even if it's char or u8, and
tal_bytelen() is going to replace tal_len() for clarity: it's only needed
where a pointer is void.
We shim tal_bytelen() for now.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We used to just manually set ROUTING_FLAGS_DISABLED, but that means we
then suppressed the real channel_update because we thought it was a
duplicate!
So use a local flag: set it for the channel when the peer disconnects,
and clear it when channeld sends a local update.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This doesn't do anything for us now, since we actually tend to produce
DISABLE/ENABLE update pairs. But the infrastructure is useful for the
next patch.
We also add more details to the trace message in the core update code.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
structeq() is too dangerous: if a structure has padding, it can fail
silently.
The new ccan/structeq instead provides a macro to define foo_eq(),
which does the right thing in case of padding (which none of our
structures currently have anyway).
Upgrade ccan, and use it everywhere. Except run-peer-wire.c, which
is only testing code and can use raw memcmp(): valgrind will tell us
if padding exists.
Interestingly, we still declared short_channel_id_eq, even though
we didn't define it any more!
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We wrap it in 'struct pubkey' for typesafety and consistency, and the
next patch takes advantage of that when we move to pubkey_eq.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This makes the exposed interface much smaller, cleaner and will allow us to just
replay gossip messages from the broadcast.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Two cases:
1. Node no longer has any public channels: remove node_announcement.
2. Node's node_announcement now preceeds all the channel_announcements:
move node_announcement to the end.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This lets detect if a node announce preceeds a channel announce once we
delete the node announcement.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We *accept* a node_announce if we have a channel_announce, but we
can't queue it until we queue the channel_announce, which we only do
once we have recieved a channel_update.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is kind of orthogonal to the other changes, but makes sense: if we
would instantly or never prune the message, don't accept it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In general, we need to only publish node announcements after
publishing channel announcements, though we can accept node
announcements as soon as we see channel announcements. So we keep a
flag for those node_announcement which haven't been broadcast yet.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
handle_pending_cannouncement might not actually add the announcment,
as it could be waiting for a channel_update. We need to wait for
the actual announcement before considering announcing our node.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We generate new ones anyway; removing this code changes fixes coming
up which now only need to change one place.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We erroneously create updates with the same timestamps when tests run
quickly, and the second one is ignored.
We've already noted that this should be fixed: gossipd should generate
all the updates, as it already has to do the case where channeld
crashed, for example. But that's a bigger change.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@cdecker points out that in test_forward, where we manually create a route,
we get an error back which contains an update for an unknown channel.
We should still note this, but it's not an error for testing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is something which generally shouldn't happen, but we didn't
notice it previously.
We ignore this warning in the case where a channel was deleted: this
happens because one side can send an update while the other notices
that the channel is closed.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Note: this will break the gossip_store if they have current channels,
but it will fail to parse and be discarded.
Have local_add_channel do just that: the update is logically separate
and can be sent separately.
This removes the ugly 'bool add_to_store' flag.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. If we have a channel_announcement, the channel is public, otherwise
it's not. Not all channels are public, as they can be local: those
have a NULL channel_announcement.
2. If we don't have a channel_update, we know nothing about that half
of the channel, and no other fields are valid.
3. We can tell if a half channel is disabled by the flags field directly.
Note that we never send halfchannels without an update over
gossip_getchannels_reply so that marshalling/unmarshalling can be
vastly simplified.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Make the update/announce messages own the element in the broadcast map
not the other way around.
Then we keep a pointer to the message, and when we free it
(eg. channel closed, update replaces it), it gets freed from the
broadcast map automatically.
The result is much nicer!
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Basically, if we don't have an announcement for the channel, stash it,
and once we get an announcement, replay if necessary.
Fixes: #1485
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Someone could try to announce an internal address, and we might probe
it.
This breaks tests, so we add '--dev-allow-localhost' for our tests, so
we don't eliminate that one. Of course, now we need to skip some more
tests in non-developer mode.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If channeld dies for some reason (eg, reconnect) and we didn't yet announce
the channel, we can miss doing so. This is unusual, because if lightningd
restarts it rearms the callback which gives us funding_locked, so it only
happens if just channel dies before sending the announcement message.
This problem applies to both temporary announcement (for gossipd) and
the real one. For the temporary one, simply re-send on startup, and
remote the error msg gossipd gives if it sees a second one. For the
real one, we need a flag to tell us the depth is sufficient; the peer
will ignore re-sends anyway.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
If something goes (fatally) wrong, we won't add it to the store.
This reveals a latent bug in routing_add_channel_announcement() and
friend which did a take() on msg, which it doesn't own. TAKES means
that it will take ownership IF the caller requests, not an unconditional
ownership transfer (which is an antipattern).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We enter nodes in the map when we create channels, but those channels
could be local and unannounced. This triggered a failure in
test_gossip_persistence since the store truncated when it saw the
first thing was a node_announce.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Internally both payment and routing use 64-bit, but the interface
between them used 32-bit.
Since both components already support 64-bit we should use that.
This was a tricky one to find, it turns out that some nodes are sending
node_announcements even if they don't have a channel announced yet. If they are
a peer and the channel is currently verifying then we'll have a local channel in
the network view, hence accept the node_announcement, but when replaying, the
node_announcement will be replayed and we won't have a channel yet. This just
skips node_announcements, which is always safe.
Reported-by: @laszlohanyecz
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Messages from peers and messages from the gossip_store now have completely
different entrypoints, so we don't need to trace their origin around the message
handling code any longer.
Christian Decker
Rusty Russell
conanoc
ZmnSCPxj
practicalswift