`ChannelManager::fail_htlc_backwards`' bool return value is quite
confusing - just because it returns false doesn't mean the payment
wasn't (already) failed. Worse, in some race cases around shutdown
where a payment was claimed before an unclean shutdown and then
retried on startup, `fail_htlc_backwards` could return true even
though (a duplicate copy of the same payment) was claimed, but the
claim event has not been seen by the user yet.
While its possible to use it correctly, its somewhat confusing to
have a return value at all, and definitely lends itself to misuse.
Instead, we should push users towards a model where they don't care
if `fail_htlc_backwards` succeeds - either they've locally marked
the payment as failed (prior to seeing any `PaymentReceived`
events) and will fail any attempts to pay it, or they have not and
the payment is still receivable until its timeout time is reached.
We can revisit this decision based on user feedback, but will need
to very carefully document the potential failure modes here if we
do.
As additional sanity checks, before claiming a payment, we check
that we have the full amount available in `claimable_htlcs` that
the payment should be for. Concretely, this prevents one
somewhat-absurd edge case where a user may receive an MPP payment,
wait many *blocks* before claiming it, allowing us to fail the
pending HTLCs and the sender to retry some subset of the payment
before we go to claim. More generally, this is just good
belt-and-suspenders against any edge cases we may have missed.
If we crashed during a payment claim and then detected a partial
claim on restart, we should ensure the user is aware that the
payment has been claimed. We do so here by using the new
partial-claim detection logic to create a `PaymentClaimed` event.
While the HTLC-claim process happens across all MPP parts under one
lock, this doesn't imply that they are claimed fully atomically on
disk. Ultimately, an application can crash after persisting one
`ChannelMonitorUpdate` out of multiple monitor updates needed for
the full claim.
Previously, this would leave us in a very bad state - because of
the all-channels-available check in `claim_funds` we'd refuse to
claim the payment again on restart (even though the
`PaymentReceived` event will be passed to the user again), and we'd
end up having partially claimed the payment!
The fix for the consistency part of this issue is pretty
straightforward - just check for this condition on startup and
complete the claim across all channels/`ChannelMonitor`s if we
detect it.
This still leaves us in a confused state from the perspective of
the user, however - we've actually claimed a payment but when they
call `claim_funds` we return `false` indicating it could not be
claimed.
In the next commit we'll randomize the `ConnectStyle` used in each
test. However, some tests are slightly too prescriptive, which we
address here in a few places.
This update also includes a minor refactor. The return type of
`pending_monitor_events` has been changed to a `Vec` tuple with the
`OutPoint` type. This associates a `Vec` of `MonitorEvent`s with a
funding outpoint.
We've also renamed `source/sink_channel_id` to `prev/next_channel_id` in
the favour of clarity.
Add test that ensures that channels are closed with
`ClosureReason::DisconnectedPeer` if the peer disconnects before the
funding transaction has been broadcasted.
During a `channel_reestablish` now we send a warning message when we receive a old commitment transaction from the peer.
In addition, this commit include the update of functional test to make sure that the receiver will generate warn messages.
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
In general, we should never be automatically force-closing our
users' channels unless there is some immediate risk of funds loss
(ie because of some HTLC(s) which are timing out soon). In any
other case, we should trust the user to be able to figure out what
is going on and close their channels manually instead of trying to
be overly clever and automate closures if we think the channel is
useless.
In this case, even if a peer has some required feature that does
not allow us to communicate with them, there is a strong
possibility that some LDK upgrade may allow us to in the future. In
the mean time, there is no reason to go on-chain unless the user
needs funds immediately. In such a case, the user should already
have logic to force-close channels with peers which are not
available for any reason.
When we receive multiple HTLCs which claim to be a part of the same
MPP but which are inconsistent for some reason, we should fail the
inconsistent HTLCs but keep the first HTLCs up until the first
inconsistency.
This works, but it turns out there was no test coverage, so we add
some here.
MAX_FUNDING_SATOSHIS will no longer be accurately named once wumbo is merged.
Also, we'll want to check that wumbo channels don't exceed the total bitcoin supply
Previously, if we were offline when a funding transaction was
locked in, and then we came back online, calling
`best_block_updated` once followed by `transactions_confirmed`,
we'd not generate a funding_locked until the next
`best_block_updated`.
We address this by re-calling `best_block_updated` in
`transactions_confirmed`, similar to how `ChannelMonitor` works.
This creates an SCID alias for all of our outbound channels, which
we send to our counterparties as a part of the `funding_locked`
message and then recognize in any HTLC forwarding instructions.
Note that we generate an SCID alias for all channels, including
already open ones, even though we currently have no way of
communicating to our peers the SCID alias for already-open
channels.
