test_onchain_to_onchain_claim was connecting additional blocks in
order to reach HTLC timeout and broadcast an HTLC-Timeout
transaction, resulting in it not testing whether HTLC preimages are
learned instantly in response to HTLC-Success transactions.
This should provide some additional future extensibility, allowing
for new informational events which can be safely ignored to be
ignored by older versions.
The wait_threshold_conf!() macro in check_spend_holder_transaction
was only used once, making it a good candidate for inlining at the
callsite. Further, it incorrectly always logged that we were
failing HTLCs from the "latest" commitment transaction, when it is
sometimes actually failing HTLCs from the previous commitment
transaction.
Previously, we could fail to generate a new commitment transaction
but it simply indicated we had gone to doule-claim an HTLC. Now
that double-claims are returned instead as Ok(None), we should
handle the error case and fail the channel, as the only way to hit
the error case is if key derivation failed or the user refused to
sign the new commitment transaction.
This also resolves an issue where we wouldn't inform our
ChannelMonitor of the new payment preimage in case we failed to
fetch a signature for the new commitment transaction.
When receiving an update_fulfill_htlc message, we immediately
forward the claim backwards along the payment path before waiting
for a full commitment_signed dance. This is great, but can cause
duplicative claims if a node sends an update_fulfill_htlc message,
disconnects, reconnects, and then has to re-send its
update_fulfill_htlc message again.
While there was code to handle this, it treated it as a channel
error on the inbound channel, which is incorrect - this is an
expected, albeit incredibly rare, condition. Instead, we handle
these double-claims correctly, simply ignoring them.
With debug_assertions enabled, we also check that the previous
close of the same HTLC was a fulfill, and that we are not moving
from a HTLC failure to an HTLC claim after its too late.
A test is also added, which hits all three failure cases in
`Channel::get_update_fulfill_htlc`.
Found by the chanmon_consistency fuzzer.
When there are fewer known `from` feature bytes than known `to` feature
bytes, an index-out-of-bounds error can occur if the `from` features
have unknown features set in a byte past the greatest known `from`
feature byte.
This was reported by a user when trying to send a payment using the LDK
sample (specifically during route generation when translating a Features
from one context to another)
The problem was we didn't check T::KNOWN_FEATURE_MASK vec length before
indexing into it, due likely to the assumption that known feature vec
lengths are the same across contexts, when they may not be
As the variable name implies holder_selected_chan_reserve_msat is
intended to be in millisatoshis, but is instead calculated in
satoshis.
We fix that error here and update the relevant tests to more
accurately calculate the expected reserve value and test both
success and failure cases.
Bug discovered by chanmon_consistency fuzz target.
Instead of interpreting the backwards compatibility data in Channel
serialization, use the serialization version bump present in 0.0.99
as the flag to indicate if a channel should be read in backwards
compatibility.
Private nodes should never wish to forward HTLCs at all, which we
support here by disabling forwards out over private channels by
default. As private nodes should not have any public channels, this
suffices, without allowing users to disable forwarding over
channels announced in the routing graph already.
Closes#969
Currently the base fee we apply is always the expected cost to
claim an HTLC on-chain in case of closure. This results in
significantly higher than market rate fees [1], and doesn't really
match the actual forwarding trust model anyway - as long as
channel counterparties are honest, our HTLCs shouldn't end up
on-chain no matter what the HTLC sender/recipient do.
While some users may wish to use a feerate that implies they will
not lose funds even if they go to chain (assuming no flood-and-loot
style attacks), they should do so by calculating fees themselves;
since they're already charging well above market-rate,
over-estimating some won't have a large impact.
Worse, we current re-calculate fees at forward-time, not based on
the fee we set in the channel_update. This means that the fees
others expect to pay us (and which they calculate their route based
on), is not what we actually want to charge, and that any attempt
to forward through us is inherently race-y.
This commit adds a configuration knob to set the base fee
explicitly, defaulting to 1 sat, which appears to be market-rate
today.
[1] Note that due to an msat-vs-sat bug we currently actually
charge 1000x *less* than the calculated cost.
This was missed prior to 0.0.98, so requires a
backwards-compatibility wrapper inside the `Channel` serialization
logic, but it's not very complicated to do so.
After the merge of #984, Jeff pointed out that `ChannelDetails` has
become a bit of a "bag of variables", and that a few of the variable
names in #984 were more confusing than necessary in context.
This addresses several issues by:
* Splitting counterparty parameters into a separate
`ChannelCounterpartyParameters` struct,
* using the name `unspendable_punishment_reserve` for both outbound
and inbound channel reserves, differentiating them based on their
position in the counterparty parameters struct or not,
* Using the name `force_close_spend_delay` instead of
`spend_csv_on_our_commitment_funds` to better communicate what
is occurring.
C-Lightning versions prior to 0.10 (incorrectly) enforce that the
reply_channel_range first_blocknum field is set to at least the
value they sent in their query_channel_range message. Sending a 0
results in them responding with an Error message, closing open
channels spuriously.
Further, C-Lightning versions prior to 0.10 require that the
reply_channel_range first_blocknum is either the same block implied
as the last block of the previous reply_channel_range or one
greater. This is not only a creative interpretation of the spec,
but a perfectly reasonable implementation might still receive an
Error message in the case of replies split by an empty block.
This code is extracted and modified from a previous version of
the original query_channel_range PR in commit
44ba52ccf1. The original commit is by
`bmancini55 <bmancini@gmail.com>`.
If our channel party sends us our own channel_update message, we'll
erroneously use the information in that message to update our view
of the forwarding parameters our counterparty requires of us,
ultimately generating invoices with bogus forwarding information.
This fixes that behavior by checking the channel_update's
directionality before handling it.
If we are a public node and have a private channel, our
counterparty needs to know the fees which we will charge to forward
payments to them. Without sending them a channel_update, they have
no way to learn that information, resulting in the channel being
effectively useless for outbound-from-us payments.
This commit fixes our lack of channel_update messages to private
channel counterparties, ensuring we always send them a
channel_update after the channel funding is confirmed.
