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!
Currently, if a channel's funding is locked in and then later
reorg'd back to half of the channel's minimum-depth we will
immediately force-close the channel. However, this can happen at
the fork-point while processing a reorg, and generally reorgs do
not reduce the block height at all, making this a rather useless
endeavor.
Ideally we'd never auto-force-close channels at all due to a reorg,
instead simply marking it as inactive until the funding
transaction is re-confirmed (or allowing the user to attempt to
force-close or force-closing once we're confident we have
completed reorg processing if we're at risk of losing funds
already received in the channel).
Sadly, we currently do not support changing a channel's SCID and
updating our SCID maps, so we cannot yet remove the automated
force-close logic. Still, there is no reason to do it until a
funding transaction has been removed from the chain.
This implements that change - only force-closeing once a channel's
funding transaction has been reorg'd out (still potentially at a
reorg's fork point). This continues to imply a 1-confirmation
channel will always be force-closed after a reorg of the funding
transaction, and will imply a similar behavior with 0-conf
channels.
The `full_stack_target` fuzzer managed to find a subtraction
underflow in the new `Channel::get_htlc_maximum` function where we
subtract both sides' reserve values from the channel funding. Such
a channel is obviously completely useless, so we should reject it
during opening instead of integer-underflowing later.
Thanks to Chaincode Labs for providing the fuzzing resources which
found this bug!
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
`ChannelDetails::outbound_capacity_msat` describes the total amount
available for sending across several HTLCs, basically just our
balance minus the reserve value maintained by our counterparty.
However, when routing we use it to guess the maximum amount we can
send in a single additional HTLC, which it is not.
There are numerous reasons why our balance may not match the amount
we can send in a single HTLC, whether the HTLC in-flight limit, the
channe's HTLC maximum, or our feerate buffer.
This commit splits the `outbound_capacity_msat` field into two -
`outbound_capacity_msat` and `outbound_htlc_limit_msat`, setting us
up for correctly handling our next-HTLC-limit in the future.
This also addresses the first of the reasons why the values may
not match - the max-in-flight limit. The inaccuracy is ultimately
tracked as #1126.
Because negotiating `scid_alias` for all of our channels will cause
us to create channels which LDK versions prior to 0.0.106 do not
understand, we disable `scid_alias` negotiation by default.
This does not, however, ever send the scid_alias feature bit for
outgoing channels, as that would cause the immediately prior
version of LDK to be unable to read channel data.
As we add new supported channel types, inbound channels which use
new features may cause backwards-compatibility issues for clients.
If a new channel is opened using new features while a client still
wishes to ensure support for downgrading to a previous version of
LDK, that new channel may cause the `ChannelManager` to fail
deserialization due to unsupported feature flags.
By exposing the channel type flags to the user in channel requests,
users wishing to support downgrading to previous versions of LDK
can reject channels which use channel features which previous
versions of LDK do not understand.
As a part of adding SCID aliases to channels, we now have to accept
otherwise-redundant funding_locked messages which serve only to
update the SCID alias. Previously, we'd failt he channel as such
an update used to be bogus.
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.
New `funding_locked` messages can include SCID aliases which our
counterparty will recognize as "ours" for the purposes of relaying
transactions to us. This avoids telling the world about our
on-chain transactions every time we want to receive a payment, and
will allow for receiving payments before the funding transaction
appears on-chain.
Here we store the new SCID aliases and use them in invoices instead
of he "standard" SCIDs.
Somehow, our channel type implementation doesn't echo back the
channel type as we believe it was negotiated, as we should. Though
the spec doesn't explicitly require this, some implementations may
require it and it appears to have been in the BOLTs from the start
of the channel type logic.
Add functional tests for manually responding to inbound channel requests.
Responding to inbound channel requests are required when the
`manually_accept_inbound_channels` config flag is set to true.
The tests cover the following cases:
* Accepting an inbound channel request
* Rejecting an inbound channel request
* FundingCreated message sent by the counterparty before accepting the
inbound channel request
* Attempting to accept an inbound channel request twice
* Attempting to accept an unkown inbound channel
Add a new config flag `UserConfig::manually_accept_inbound_channels`,
which when set to true allows the node operator to accept or reject new
channel requests.
When set to true, `Event::OpenChannelRequest` will be triggered once a
request to open a new inbound channel is received. When accepting the
request, `ChannelManager::accept_inbound_channel` should be called.
Rejecting the request is done through
`ChannelManager::force_close_channel`.
Given the balance is reported as "total balance if we went to chain
ignoring fees", it seems reasonable to include claimed HTLCs - if
we went to chain we'd get those funds, less on-chain fees. Further,
if we do not include them, its possible to have pending outbound
holding-cell HTLCs underflow the balance calculation, causing a
panic in debug mode, and bogus values in release.
This resolves a subtraction underflow bug found by the
`chanmon_consistency` fuzz target.
We currently allow users to provide an `override_config` in
`ChannelManager::create_channel` which it seems should apply to the
channel. However, because we don't store any of it, the only parts
which we apply to the channel are those which are set in the
`Channel` object immediately in `Channel::new_outbound` and used
from there.
This is great in most cases, however the
`UserConfig::peer_channel_config_limits` `ChannelHandshakeLimits`
object is used in `accept_channel` to bound what is acceptable in
our peer's `AcceptChannel` message. Thus, for outbound channels, we
are given a full `UserConfig` object to "override" the default
config, but we don't use any of the handshake limits specified in
it.
Here, we move to storing the `ChannelHandshakeLimits` explicitly
and applying it when we receive our peer's `AcceptChannel`. Note
that we don't need to store it anywhere because if we haven't
received an `AcceptChannel` from our peer when we reload from disk
we will forget the channel entirely anyway.
