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>
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 use these for receiving arrays at init time, we should also use them
for fulfull/fail of HTLCs in normal operation. That we we benefit from all
those assertions.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The master tells us the short_channel_id of the outgoing channel, and
channeld is supposed to get the corresponding channel_update from gossipd.
Instead, it got the channel_update for the *local* channel and ignored
that one.
The master tells us the short_channel_id of the outgoing channel when
failing an HTLC, but channeld didn't store it anywhere. It also
didn't tell channeld the short_channel_id in the case where we're
reconnecting and it's feeding us an array of failed htlcs.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
That was the cause of the bad gossip order failures: gossipd thought our
channel was live, but the other end didn't receive message last time.
Now gossipd doesn't use fd to kill us (connectd tells master to do so), we
can implement read_peer_msg_nogossip().
Fixes: #1706
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This will avoid us having to round-trip to the HSM each time we want it.
For now we still derive it, too, and assert it's correct.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Well, it's generated by shachain, so technically it is a sha256, but
that's an internal detail. It's a secret.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
I'm not completely convinced that it's only ever set to a failcode
with the BADONION bit set, especially after the previous patches in
this series. Now that channeld can handle arbitrary failcodes passed
this way, simply rename it.
We add marshalling assertions that only one of failcode and failreason
is set, and we unmarshal an empty 'fail' to NULL (just the the
generated unmarshalling code does).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
practicalswift
lisa neigut
Christian Decker
Stephanie Stroka