From: Gleb Naumenko Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:18:33 +0000 (+0300) Subject: Store channel capacity if available X-Git-Tag: v0.0.12~46^2~1 X-Git-Url: http://git.bitcoin.ninja/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3a57cfc7c68f9e0e92a19b6803d3e9dac9e75678;p=rust-lightning Store channel capacity if available --- diff --git a/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs b/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs index 4110d5220..8754656f4 100644 --- a/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs +++ b/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs @@ -90,8 +90,8 @@ impl RoutingMessageHandler for N return Err(LightningError{err: "Channel announcement node had a channel with itself".to_owned(), action: ErrorAction::IgnoreError}); } - let checked_utxo = match self.chain_monitor.get_chain_utxo(msg.contents.chain_hash, msg.contents.short_channel_id) { - Ok((script_pubkey, _value)) => { + let utxo_value = match self.chain_monitor.get_chain_utxo(msg.contents.chain_hash, msg.contents.short_channel_id) { + Ok((script_pubkey, value)) => { let expected_script = Builder::new().push_opcode(opcodes::all::OP_PUSHNUM_2) .push_slice(&msg.contents.bitcoin_key_1.serialize()) .push_slice(&msg.contents.bitcoin_key_2.serialize()) @@ -102,11 +102,11 @@ impl RoutingMessageHandler for N } //TODO: Check if value is worth storing, use it to inform routing, and compare it //to the new HTLC max field in channel_update - true + Some(value) }, Err(ChainError::NotSupported) => { // Tentatively accept, potentially exposing us to DoS attacks - false + None }, Err(ChainError::NotWatched) => { return Err(LightningError{err: format!("Channel announced on an unknown chain ({})", msg.contents.chain_hash.encode().to_hex()), action: ErrorAction::IgnoreError}); @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ impl RoutingMessageHandler for N return Err(LightningError{err: "Channel announced without corresponding UTXO entry".to_owned(), action: ErrorAction::IgnoreError}); }, }; - let result = self.network_graph.write().unwrap().update_channel_from_announcement(msg, checked_utxo, Some(&self.secp_ctx)); + let result = self.network_graph.write().unwrap().update_channel_from_announcement(msg, utxo_value, Some(&self.secp_ctx)); log_trace!(self.logger, "Added channel_announcement for {}{}", msg.contents.short_channel_id, if !msg.contents.excess_data.is_empty() { " with excess uninterpreted data!" } else { "" }); result } @@ -257,6 +257,8 @@ pub struct ChannelInfo { pub node_two: PublicKey, /// Details about the second direction of a channel pub two_to_one: Option, + /// The channel capacity as seen on-chain, if chain lookup is available. + pub capacity_sats: Option, /// An initial announcement of the channel /// Mostly redundant with the data we store in fields explicitly. /// Everything else is useful only for sending out for initial routing sync. @@ -278,6 +280,7 @@ impl_writeable!(ChannelInfo, 0, { one_to_two, node_two, two_to_one, + capacity_sats, announcement_message }); @@ -555,7 +558,7 @@ impl NetworkGraph { /// which is probably result of a reorg. In that case, we update channel info only if the /// utxo was checked, otherwise stick to the existing update, to prevent DoS risks. /// Announcement signatures are checked here only if Secp256k1 object is provided. - fn update_channel_from_announcement(&mut self, msg: &msgs::ChannelAnnouncement, checked_utxo: bool, secp_ctx: Option<&Secp256k1>) -> Result { + fn update_channel_from_announcement(&mut self, msg: &msgs::ChannelAnnouncement, utxo_value: Option, secp_ctx: Option<&Secp256k1>) -> Result { if let Some(sig_verifier) = secp_ctx { let msg_hash = hash_to_message!(&Sha256dHash::hash(&msg.contents.encode()[..])[..]); secp_verify_sig!(sig_verifier, &msg_hash, &msg.node_signature_1, &msg.contents.node_id_1); @@ -572,6 +575,7 @@ impl NetworkGraph { one_to_two: None, node_two: msg.contents.node_id_2.clone(), two_to_one: None, + capacity_sats: utxo_value, announcement_message: if should_relay { Some(msg.clone()) } else { None }, }; @@ -580,7 +584,7 @@ impl NetworkGraph { //TODO: because asking the blockchain if short_channel_id is valid is only optional //in the blockchain API, we need to handle it smartly here, though it's unclear //exactly how... - if checked_utxo { + if utxo_value.is_some() { // Either our UTXO provider is busted, there was a reorg, or the UTXO provider // only sometimes returns results. In any case remove the previous entry. Note // that the spec expects us to "blacklist" the node_ids involved, but we can't