This is necessary since we have onchaind tell us about the
their_unilateral/to_us output, after it is already in a block.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
We don't handle \u, since we assume everyone sane is using UTF-8. We'd
still have to reject '\u0000' and maybe other weird cases if we did.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Since we may want to extend the on-disk format by adding custom information we
may as well just go the extra mile and reuse the serialization primitives we
already have.
Signed-off-by: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
But only if we're actually going to change the feerate, otherwise we'd
log every time.
Suggested-by: @ZmnSCPxj
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Naively, this would be 250 satoshi per sipa, but it's not since bitcoind's
fee calculation was not rewritten to deal with weight, but instead bolted
on using vbytes.
The resulting calculations made me cry; I dried my tears on the thorns
of BUILD_ASSERT (I know that makes no sense, but bear with me here as I'm
trying not to swear at my bitcoind colleagues right now).
Fixes: #1194
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
This bug is a classic case of being lazy:
1. peer_accept_channel() allocated its return off the input message,
rather than taking an explicit allocation context. This concealed the
lifetime nature of the return.
2. The context for sanitize_error was the error itself, rather than the
more obvious tmpctx (connect_failed does not take).
The global tmpctx removes the "efficiency" excuse for grabbing a random
object to use as context, and is also nice and explicit.
All-the-hard-work-by: @ZmnSCPxj
This fixes the root cause of https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/issues/1212
where we deleted the payment because we wanted to retry, then retry failed
so we had an (old) HTLC without a matching payment. We then fed that
HTLC to onchaind, which tells us it's missing, and we try to fail the
payment and deref a NULL pointer.
Fixes: #1212
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
We would `block_map_add` inside `add_tip`, but we never
`block_map_del` inside `remove_tip`, which is dangerous as
we actually `tal_free` the block inside `remove_tip`.
Our CI did not reliably trap this problem since block
hashes are random and rerunning the `test_blockchaintrack`
often passed spuriously.
