The #389 introduced some changes that conflicted with
9de3827199 so this ports those changes
into #389 and fixes the `master` branch again.
Lesson learned: always rebase a PR before merging.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
The same as master request/response: we queue up incoming replies we
don't want for later processing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We revert to a simple select() loop. This makes things simpler, and fixes
the problem where we want to exit but we've partially read a peer packet.
We still queue up outgoing peer packets for non-blocking send: if we
went full sync there, we'd risk deadlock if both sides wrote a huge
number of packets and neither was reading.
This also greatly simplifies the next patches, where we want to make
our first get/response from gossipd.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The master now hands channeld either an error code, and channeld
generates the error message, or an error message relayed from another
node to pass through.
This doesn't fill in the channel_update yet: we need to wire up gossipd
to give us that.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Currently lightningd does this, but channeld is perfectly capable of doing it.
channeld is also in a far better position to add channel_updates to it.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The bulk of this patch is actually hoisting the get_shared_secret()
function (unchanged) so we can call it earlier.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We can tell this more generically because the count of revocations
received != count of commitments sent. This is the correct condition
which allows us to restore the test we had to eliminate in
c3cb7f1c85.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We only send them when we're not awaiting revoke_and_ack: our
simplified handling can't deal with multiple in flights.
Closes: #244
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We can have it happen on reconnect due to fee changes; we should really
detect this case, but it's harmless to let it happen as a noop.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Handling feerates for the fundee (who only receives fee_update) is
simple: it's practically atomic since we accept commitment and send
revocation, thus they're applied to both sides at once.
Handling feerates for the funder is more complex: in theory we could
have multiple in flight. However, if we avoid this using the same
logic as we use to suppress multiple commitments in flight, it's
simple again.
We fix the test code to use real feerate manipulation, thus have to
remove an assert about feerate being non-zero. And now we have
feechanges, we need to rely on the changes_pending flags, as we can
have changes without an HTLCs changing.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
The wire protocol uses this, in the assumption that we'll never see feerates
in excess of 4294967 satoshi per kiloweight.
So let's use that consistently internally as well.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Test objects must be added to $(ALL_OBJS) so they correctly depend on
CCAN headers etc.
Also, each test in a subdir must depend on headers and src in the parent
directory, as it will often #include them directly.
Reported-by: Christian Decker
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We currently scan through HTLCs: this isn't enough if we've only got a
feechange in the commitment, so use a flag (but keep both for now for
debugging).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
All the callers need to pass it in: currently channeld and openingd just
fake it by copying the payment point.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We were sending the announcement_signatures as soon as we locally
locked and got the announcement_depth, this doesn't make the channel
usable any sooner and forces the other side to stash the
signature. This defers the announcement_signature until the channel
really is usable.
This is done by adding an additional check for the remote locked
message and adding a trigger on remote lock.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
These need to be different for testing the example in BOLT 11.
We also use the cltv_final instead of deadline_blocks in the final hop:
various tests assumed 5 was OK, so we tweak utils.py.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This is a bit messier than I'd like, but we want to clearly remove all
dev code (not just have it uncalled), so we remove fields and functions
altogether rather than stub them out. This means we put #ifdefs in callers
in some places, but at least it's explicit.
We still run tests, but only a subset, and we run with NO_VALGRIND under
Travis to avoid increasing test times too much.
See-also: #176
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In this case, it was a gossip message half-sent, when we asked the peer
to be released. Fix the problem in general by making send_peer_with_fds()
wait until after the next packet.
test_routing_gossip/lightning-4/log:
b'lightning_openingd(8738): TRACE: First per_commit_point = 02e2ff759ed70c71f154695eade1983664a72546ebc552861f844bff5ea5b933bf'
b'lightning_openingd(8738): TRACE: Failed hdr decrypt with rn=11'
b'lightning_openingd(8738): STATUS_FAIL_PEER_IO: Reading accept_channel: Success'
test_routing_gossip/lightning-5/log:
b'lightning_gossipd(8461): UPDATE WIRE_GOSSIP_PEER_NONGOSSIP'
b'lightning_gossipd(8461): UPDATE WIRE_GOSSIP_PEER_NONGOSSIP'
b'lightningd(8308): Failed to get netaddr for outgoing: Transport endpoint is not connected'
The problem occurs here on release, but could be on any place where we hand
a peer over when using ccan/io. Note the other case (channel.c).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
There is a race we see sometimes under valgrind on Travis which shows
gossipd receiving the node_announce from master before it reads the
channel_announce from channeld, and thus fails. The simplest solution
is to send the channel_announce and channel_update to master as well,
so it can ensure it sends them to gossipd in order
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
In particular, the main daemon needs to pass it about (marshal/unmarshal)
but it won't need to actually use it after the next patch.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We were sending a channeld message to onchaind, which was v. confusing
due to overlap. We make all the numbers distinct, which means we can
also add an assert() that it's valid for that daemon, which catches
such errors immediately.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
practicalswift
Christian Decker
Rusty Russell