Otherwise if they reconnect, we hit the assert in recv_body:
assert(!peer->inpkt);
Found by testing on my build box *without* valgrind (so it was fast
enough to do this).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Now broadcast_tx() doesn't take ownership of the tx, make sure callers
free; a bit of refactoring to make it clear when we're making a new tx
vs. accessing an existing one, to make this clearer.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Testnet fees are all over the place: don't close a connection due to
that.
Closes: #59
Reported-by: Thomas Daede <daede003@umn.edu>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This fixes half of #59 (the part which crashes). It doesn't fix the
fact that we should never be doing this for testnet.
Reported-by: Thomas Daede <daede003@umn.edu>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Generally, the pattern is: everything returned is allocated off the return
value, which is the only thing allocated off the context. And it's always
freed.
Also, tal_free() returns NULL, so it's useful for one-line error
cleanups.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We've seen intermittant failures on testnet, so disable sending feechanges
for now: we're completely changing it for 0.6 anyway, due to Milan Spec.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Make this always the first packet after auth. That means there's no
reliance on whether a node remembers an aborted connection.
It also gives us a place to put version bits.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This gives much better errors, and allows us to return the peer id.
Closes: #37
Reported-by: Glenn Willen
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Firstly, we need to update the staging fee amount when we queue a change.
Secondly we need to remove completed fee updates, otherwise we hit a
database constraint that peer & state are unique.
Reported-by: Christian Decker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We were out by 1000, and also derived it from the previous, not current
state.
Reported-by: Christian Decker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We store peers in the database for STATE_INIT, but they don't reconnect
properly. We should not forget STATE_INIT dropped peers, but use some
timeout mechanism if we can't reconnect to clean up.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Fix dff50c3a5f2224592d135ad9cc6c11be89e26def: if multiple blocks come between
polling, we'll get called once for the new tip.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We *should* be in a state which accepts it (could happen with reorg),
and there's no reason to test for greater than depth since we must process
blocks in order.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Currently we get the odd message "Own anchor has insufficient funds".
Reported-by: Christian Decker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
It's not in a transaction in one caller, so wrap that.
This removes some more error handling code.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rename the structs to match (and remove dev-echo).
This makes it clear that they're not the normal API.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We need some ordering to deliver them to the JSON "waitinvoice" command;
we use a counter where 0 means "unpaid".
We keep two lists now, one for unpaid and one for paid invoices.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is important when we put payments in the database: they need to be
updated atomically as the HTLC is.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is important when we put payments in the database: they need to be
updated atomically as the HTLC is.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We had enum channel_side (OURS, THEIRS) for which end of a channel we
had, and htlc_side (LOCAL, REMOTE) for who proposed the HTLC.
Combine these both into simply "enum side".
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
When they propose an HTLC to us, they need to be able to cover both it,
and the associated fees. When it gets acked and applied to them, however,
they may no longer be able to afford the fees; this is OK and expected.
So add a flag to say whether they can dig into fees or not: without
this patch the code calls fatal() on the next patch which tests it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell
Christian Decker