1. Rename channel_funding_locked to channel_funding_depth in
channeld/channel_wire.csv.
2. Add minimum_depth in struct channel in common/initial_channel.h and
change corresponding init function: new_initial_channel().
3. Add confirmation_needed in struct peer in channeld/channeld.c.
4. Rename channel_tell_funding_locked to channel_tell_depth.
5. Call channel_tell_depth even if depth < minimum, and still call
lockin_complete in channel_tell_depth, iff depth > minimum_depth.
6. channeld ignore the channel_funding_depth unless its >
minimum_depth(except to update billboard, and set
peer->confirmation_needed = minimum_depth - depth).
We need to do it in various places, but we shouldn't do it lightly:
the primitives are there to help us get overflow handling correct.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Basically we tell it that every field ending in '_msat' is a struct
amount_msat, and 'satoshis' is an amount_sat. The exceptions are
channel_update's fee_base_msat which is a u32, and
final_incorrect_htlc_amount's incoming_htlc_amt which is also a
'struct amount_msat'.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
As a side-effect of using amount_msat in gossipd/routing.c, we explicitly
handle overflows and don't need to pre-prune ridiculous-fee channels.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Otherwise recent additional checks in tal() complain that we're freeing a
take() pointer. In this case, we're exiting so it's harmless, but it's
still a latent bug.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This existed previously, but code perturbations seem to have revealed it
now: test_bad_opening reports a leak.
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>
This is a bit different from the other cases: we need to iterate through
the peers and ask all the ones in openingd.
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>
- reduces probability for a deadlock where we block on sending data because
the other peer cannot receive because it blocks on sending data etc.
- when either side sends so much data that it fills up the kernel/network buffer
- however sending out gossip can still block when (malicious) peer never receives
@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>
