In a previous PR, we added a `MonitorUpdateCompletionAction` enum
which described actions to take after a `ChannelMonitorUpdate`
persistence completes. At the time, it was only used to execute
actions in-line, however in the next commit we'll start (correctly)
leaving the existing actions until after monitor updates complete.
Because we store some (not large, but not zero) state per-peer,
it's useful to limit the number of peers we have connected, at
least with some buffer.
Much more importantly, each channel has a relatively large cost,
especially around the `ChannelMonitor`s we have to build for each.
Thus, here, we limit the number of channels per-peer which aren't
(yet) on-chain, as well as limit the number of (inbound) peers
which don't have a (funded-on-chain) channel.
Fixes#1889
Long ago, we used the `no_connection_possible` to signal that a
peer has some unknown feature set or some other condition prevents
us from ever connecting to the given peer. In that case we'd
automatically force-close all channels with the given peer. This
was somewhat surprising to users so we removed the automatic
force-close, leaving the flag serving no LDK-internal purpose.
Distilling the concept of "can we connect to this peer again in the
future" to a simple flag turns out to be ripe with edge cases, so
users actually using the flag to force-close channels would likely
cause surprising behavior.
Thus, there's really not a lot of reason to keep the flag,
especially given its untested and likely to be broken in subtle
ways anyway.
This fixes new errors in `full_stack_target` pointed out by
Chaincode's generous fuzzing infrastructure. Specifically, there's
no reason to check the error message in the
`funding_transaction_generated` return value - it can only return
a failure if the channel has closed since the funding transaction
was generated (which is fine) or if the signer refuses to sign
(which can't happen in fuzzing).
Over the next few commits, this macro will replace the
`handle_monitor_update_res` macro. It takes a different approach -
instead of receiving the message(s) that need to be re-sent after
the monitor update completes and pushing them back into the
channel, we'll not get the messages from the channel at all until
we're ready for them.
This will unify our message sending into only actually fetching +
sending messages in the common monitor-update-completed code,
rather than both there *and* in the functions that call `Channel`
when new messages are originated.
When a `ChannelMonitor` update completes, we may need to take some
further action, such as exposing an `Event` to the user initiating
another `ChannelMonitor` update, etc. This commit adds the basic
structure to track such actions and serialize them as required.
Note that while this does introduce a new map which is written as
an even value which users cannot opt out of, the map is only filled
in when users use the asynchronous `ChannelMonitor` updates. As
these are still considered beta, breaking downgrades for such users
is considered acceptable here.
The new in-`ChannelManager` retries logic does retries as two
separate steps, under two separate locks - first it calculates
the amount that needs to be retried, then it actually sends it.
Because the first step doesn't udpate the amount, a second thread
may come along and calculate the same amount and end up retrying
duplicatively.
Because we generally shouldn't ever be processing retries at the
same time, the fix is trivial - simply take a lock at the top of
the retry loop and hold it until we're done.
In anticipation of the next commit(s) adding threaded tests, we
need to ensure our lockorder checks work fine with multiple
threads. Sadly, currently we have tests in the form
`assert!(mutex.try_lock().is_ok())` to assert that a given mutex is
not locked by the caller to a function.
The fix is rather simple given we already track mutexes locked by a
thread in our `debug_sync` logic - simply replace the check with a
new extension trait which (for test builds) checks the locked state
by only looking at what was locked by the current thread.
We're no longer supporting manual retries since
ChannelManager::send_payment_with_retry can be parameterized by a retry
strategy
This commit also updates all docs related to retry_payment and abandon_payment.
Since these docs frequently overlap with changes in preceding commits where we
start abandoning payments on behalf of the user, all the docs are updated in
one go.
When a peer disconnects but still has channels, the peer's `peer_state`
entry in the `per_peer_state` is not removed by the `peer_disconnected`
function. If the channels with that peer is later closed while still
being disconnected (i.e. force closed), we therefore need to remove the
peer from `peer_state` separately.
To remove the peers separately, we push such peers to a separate HashSet
that holds peers awaiting removal, and remove the peers on a timer to
limit the negative effects on parallelism as much as possible.
Updates multiple instances of the `ChannelManager` docs related to the
previous change that moved the storage of the channels to the
`per_peer_state`. This docs update corrects some grammar errors and
incorrect information, as well as clarifies documentation that was
confusing.
When we process gossip messages asynchronously we may find that we
want to forward a gossip message to a peer after we've returned
from the existing `handle_*` method. In order to do so, we need to
be able to send arbitrary loose gossip messages back to the
`PeerManager` via `MessageSendEvent`.
This commit modifies `MessageSendEvent` in order to support this.
Adds a new method, `list_recent_payments ` to `ChannelManager` that
returns an array of `RecentPaymentDetails` containing the payment
status (Fulfilled/Retryable/Abandoned) and its total amount across all
paths.
This sets us up for spontaneous payment retries in ChannelManager.
Currently, retrying spontaneous payments is broken in InvoicePayer because it
does not include the keysend preimage on retry.
When we landed the initial in-`ChannelManager` payment retries, we
stored the `RouteParameters` in the payment info, and then re-use
it as-is for new payments. `RouteParameters` is intended to store
the information specific to the *route*, `PaymentParameters` exists
to store information specific to a payment.
Worse, because we don't recalculate the amount stored in the
`RouteParameters` before fetching a new route with it, we end up
attempting to retry the full payment amount, rather than only the
failed part.
This issue brought to you by having redundant data in
datastructures, part 5,001.
The documentation for `Retry` is very clear that it counts the
number of failed paths, not discrete retries. When we added
retries internally in `ChannelManager`, we switched to counting
the number if discrete retries, even if multiple paths failed and
were replace with multiple MPP HTLCs.
Because we are now rewriting retries, we take this opportunity to
reduce the places where retries are analyzed, specifically a good
chunk of code is removed from `pay_internal`.
Because we now retry multiple failed paths with one single retry,
we keep the new behavior, updating the docs on `Retry` to describe
the new behavior.
`PaymentParams` is all about the parameters for a payment, i.e. the
parameters which are static across all the paths of a paymet.
`RouteParameters` is about the information specific to a given
`Route` (i.e. a set of paths, among multiple potential sets of
paths for a payment). The CLTV delta thus doesn't belong in
`RouterParameters` but instead in `PaymentParameters`.
Worse, because `RouteParameters` is built from the information in
the last hops of a `Route`, when we deliberately inflate the CLTV
delta in path-finding, retries of the payment will have the final
CLTV delta double-inflated as it inflates starting from the final
CLTV delta used in the last attempt.
When we calculate the `final_cltv_expiry_delta` to put in the
`RouteParameters` returned via events after a payment failure, we
should re-use the new one in the `PaymentParameters`, rather than
the one that was in the route itself.
`PaymentParams` is all about the parameters for a payment, i.e. the
parameters which are static across all the paths of a paymet.
`RouteParameters` is about the information specific to a given
`Route` (i.e. a set of paths, among multiple potential sets of
paths for a payment). The CLTV delta thus doesn't belong in
`RouterParameters` but instead in `PaymentParameters`.
Worse, because `RouteParameters` is built from the information in
the last hops of a `Route`, when we deliberately inflate the CLTV
delta in path-finding, retries of the payment will have the final
CLTV delta double-inflated as it inflates starting from the final
CLTV delta used in the last attempt.
By moving the CLTV delta to `PaymentParameters` we avoid this
issue, leaving only the sought amount in the `RouteParameters`.
