This is based on Christian's change, but removes all trace of the old codes.
I've proposed another spec change which removes this code altogether:
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/544
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Rusty Russell <@rustyrussell>
This is mainly just copying over the copy-editing from the
lightning-rfc repository.
[ Split to just perform changes prior to the UNKNOWN_PAYMENT_HASH change --RR ]
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Rusty Russell <@rustyrussell>
Fortunately, we can calculate the sha256 ourselves, so the
outgoing channeld doesn't need to tell us.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
When the next node tells us the onion is malformed, we now actually
report the failcode to lightningd (rather than generating an invalid
error as we do now).
We could generate the onion at this point, but except we don't know
the shared secret; we'd have to plumb that through from the incoming
channeld's HTLC.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This covers all the cases where an onion can be malformed; this means
we know in advance that it's bad. That allows us to distinguish two
cases: where lightningd rejects the onion as bad, and where the next
peer rejects the next onion as bad. Both of those (will) set failcode
to one of the BADONION values.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's more natural than using a zero-secret when something goes wrong.
Also note that the HSM will actually kill the connection if the ECDH
fails, which is fortunately statistically unlikely.
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>
This is prep work for when we sign htlc txs with
SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY.
We still deal with raw signatures for the htlc txs at the moment, since
we send them like that across the wire, and changing that was simply too
painful (for the moment?).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We only use them for re-transmitting the last commitment tx,
and the HSM signs them sync so it's straight-line code.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This simplifies lifetime assumptions. Currently all callers keep the
original around, but everything broke when I changed that in the next
patch.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
They were not universally used, and most are trivial accessors anyway.
The exception is getting the channel reserve: we have to multiply by 1000
as well as flip direction, so keep that one.
The BOLT quotes move to `struct channel_config`.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This avoids some very ugly switch() statements which mixed the two,
but we also take the chance to rename 'towire_gossip_' to
'towire_gossipd_' for those inter-daemon messages; they're messages to
gossipd, not gossip messages.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This way there's no need for a context pointer, and freeing a msg_queue
frees its contents, as expected.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Have c-lightning nodes send out the largest value for
`htlc_maximum_msat` that makes sense, ie the lesser of
the peer's max_inflight_htlc value or the total channel
capacity minus the total channel reserve.
LND does this, and we get upset with it. I had assumed we would only
do this after funding_locked (since we don't consider the channel
shortid stable until that point), but TBH 6 confirms is probably
enough.
Fixes: #1985
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Under stress, it fails (test_restart_many_payments, the next test).
I suspect a deep misunderstanding in the comparison code, will chase
separately.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We do this a lot, and had boutique helpers in various places. So add
a more generic one; for convenience it returns a pointer to the new
end element.
I prefer the name tal_arr_expand to tal_arr_append, since it's up to
the caller to populate the new array entry.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
That matches the other CSV names (HSM was the first, so it was written
before the pattern emerged).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
@renepickhardt: why is it actually lightningd.c with a d but hsm.c without d ?
And delete unused gossipd/gossip.h.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
When in this state, we send a canned error "Awaiting unilateral close".
We enter this both when we drop to chain, and when we're trying to get
them to drop to chain due to option_data_loss_protect.
As this state (unlike channel errors) is saved to the database, it means
we will *never* talk to a peer again in this state, so they can't
confuse us.
Since we set this state in channel_fail_permanent() (which is the only
place we call drop_to_chain for a unilateral close), we don't need to
save to the db: channel_set_state() does that for us.
This state change has a subtle effect: we return WIRE_UNKNOWN_NEXT_PEER
instead of WIRE_TEMPORARY_CHANNEL_FAILURE as soon as we get a failure
with a peer. To provoke a temporary failure in test_pay_disconnect we
take the node offline.
Reported-by: Christian Decker @cdecker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Firstly, if they claim to know a future value, we ask the HSM; if
they're right, we tell master what the per-commitment-secret it gave
us (we have no way to validate this, though) and it will not broadcast
a unilateral (knowing it will cause them to use a penalty tx!).
Otherwise, we check the results they sent were valid. The spec says
to do this (and close the channel if it's wrong!), because otherwise they
could continually lie and give us a bad per-commitment-secret when we
actually need it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
For option_data_loss_protect, the peer can prove to us that it's ahead;
it gives us the (hopefully honest!) per_commitment_point it will use,
and we make sure we don't broadcast the commitment transaction we have.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We ignore incoming for now, but this means we advertize the option and
we send the required fields.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We quote BOLT 2 on *local* above the *remote* checks (we quote it
again below when we do the local checks).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
1. l1 update_fee -> l2
2. l1 commitment_signed -> l2 (using new feerate)
3. l1 <- revoke_and_ack l2
4. l1 <- commitment_signed l2 (using new feerate)
5. l1 -> revoke_and_ack l2
When we break the connection after #3, the reconnection causes #4 to
be retransmitted, but it turns out l1 wasn't telling the master to set
the local feerate until it received the commitment_signed, so on
reconnect it uses the old feerate, with predictable results (bad
signature).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Now sending a ping makes sense: it should force the other end to send
a reply, unblocking the commitment process.
Note that rather than waiting for a reply, we're actually spinning on
a 100ms loop in this case. But it's simple and it works.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This doesn't do much (though we might get an error before we send the
commitment_signed), but it's infrastructure for the next patch.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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.
Also means we simplify the handle_gossip_msg() since everyone wants it to
use sync_crypto_write().
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is clearer and neater, and even slightly more efficient, since
read_peer_msg() was calling poll() again on gossipfd.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker
lisa neigut
Stephanie Stroka