In the next few commits we add support for 0conf channels, allowing
us to have an active channel with HTLC and other updates flying
prior to having an SCID available. This would break several
assumptions made in `ChannelManager`, which we address here by
looking at SCID aliases in addition to SCIDs.
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.
As the `counterparty_node_id` is now required to be passed back to the
`ChannelManager` to accept or reject an inbound channel request, the
documentation is updated to reflect that.
Because we handle messages (which can take some time, persisting
things to disk or validating cryptographic signatures) with the
top-level read lock, but require the top-level write lock to
connect new peers or handle disconnection, we are particularly
sensitive to writer starvation issues.
Rust's libstd RwLock does not provide any fairness guarantees,
using whatever the OS provides as-is. On Linux, pthreads defaults
to starving writers, which Rust's RwLock exposes to us (without
any configurability).
Here we work around that issue by blocking readers if there are
pending writers, optimizing for readable code over
perfectly-optimized blocking.
Only one instance of PeerManager::process_events can run at a time,
and each run always finishes all available work before returning.
Thus, having several threads blocked on the process_events lock
doesn't accomplish anything but blocking more threads.
Here we limit the number of blocked calls on process_events to two
- one processing events and one blocked at the top which will
process all available events after the first completes.
Because the peers write lock "blocks the world", and happens after
each read event, always taking the write lock has pretty severe
impacts on parallelism. Instead, here, we only take the global
write lock if we have to disconnect a peer.
Users are required to only ever call `read_event` serially
per-peer, thus we actually don't need any locks while we're
processing messages - we can only be processing messages in one
thread per-peer.
That said, we do need to ensure that another thread doesn't
disconnect the peer we're processing messages for, as that could
result in a peer_disconencted call while we're processing a
message for the same peer - somewhat nonsensical.
This significantly improves parallelism especially during gossip
processing as it avoids waiting on the entire set of individual
peer locks to forward a gossip message while several other threads
are validating gossip messages with their individual peer locks
held.
This adds the required locking to process messages from different
peers simultaneously in `PeerManager`. Note that channel messages
are still processed under a global lock in `ChannelManager`, and
most work is still processed under a global lock in gossip message
handling, but parallelizing message deserialization and message
decryption is somewhat helpful.
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>
Use the `counterparty_max_htlc_value_in_flight_msat` value, and not the
`holder_max_htlc_value_in_flight_msat` value when creating the
`htlc_maximum_msat` value for `ChannelUpdate` messages.
BOLT 7 specifies that the field MUST be less than or equal to
`max_htlc_value_in_flight_msat` received from the peer, which we
currently are not guaranteed to adhere to by using the holder value.
Add a config field
`ChannelHandshakeConfig::max_inbound_htlc_value_in_flight_percent_of_channel`
which sets the percentage of the channel value we cap the total value of
outstanding inbound HTLCs to.
This field can be set to a value between 1-100, where the value
corresponds to the percent of the channel value in whole percentages.
Note that:
* If configured to another value than the default value 10, any new
channels created with the non default value will cause versions of LDK
prior to 0.0.104 to refuse to read the `ChannelManager`.
* This caps the total value for inbound HTLCs in-flight only, and
there's currently no way to configure the cap for the total value of
outbound HTLCs in-flight.
* The requirements for your node being online to ensure the safety of
HTLC-encumbered funds are different from the non-HTLC-encumbered funds.
This makes this an important knob to restrict exposure to loss due to
being offline for too long. See
`ChannelHandshakeConfig::our_to_self_delay` and
`ChannelConfig::cltv_expiry_delta` for more information.
Default value: 10.
Minimum value: 1, any values less than 1 will be treated as 1 instead.
Maximum value: 100, any values larger than 100 will be treated as 100
instead.
In 2826af75a5 we fixed a fuzz crash
in which the total reserve values in a channel were greater than
the funding amount, checked when an incoming channel is accepted.
This, however, did not fix the same issue for outbound channels,
where a peer can accept a channel with a nonsense reserve value in
the `accept_channel` message. The `full_stack_target` fuzzer
eventually found its way into the same issue, which this resolves.
Thanks (again) to Chaincode Labs for providing the fuzzing
resources which found this bug!
We only use it to check the amount when processing MPP parts, but
store the full object (including new payment metadata) in it.
Because we now store the amount in the parent structure, there is
no need for it at all in the `OnionPayload`. Sadly, for
serialization compatibility, we need it to continue to exist, at
least temporarily, but we can avoid populating the new fields in
that case.
