From: Gleb Naumenko Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:37:51 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Don't underpay htlc_min due to path contribution X-Git-Tag: v0.0.13~11^2 X-Git-Url: http://git.bitcoin.ninja/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=e0600e5b1edc5be57258a4b28963789dbc69b431;p=rust-lightning Don't underpay htlc_min due to path contribution We could have possibly constructed a slightly inconsistent path: since we reduce value being transferred all the way, we could have violated htlc_minimum_msat on some channels we already passed (assuming dest->source direction). Here, we recompute the fees again, so that if that's the case, we match the currently underpaid htlc_minimum_msat with fees. --- diff --git a/lightning/src/routing/router.rs b/lightning/src/routing/router.rs index fd9e0b06a..dd18f1bc7 100644 --- a/lightning/src/routing/router.rs +++ b/lightning/src/routing/router.rs @@ -221,15 +221,19 @@ impl PaymentPath { return result; } - // If an amount transferred by the path is updated, the fees should be adjusted. Any other way - // to change fees may result in an inconsistency. Also, it's only safe to reduce the value, - // to not violate channel upper bounds. + // If the amount transferred by the path is updated, the fees should be adjusted. Any other way + // to change fees may result in an inconsistency. + // + // Sometimes we call this function right after constructing a path which has inconsistent + // (in terms of reaching htlc_minimum_msat), so that this function puts the fees in order. + // In that case we call it on the "same" amount we initially allocated for this path, and which + // could have been reduced on the way. In that case, there is also a risk of exceeding + // available_liquidity inside this function, because the function is unaware of this bound. + // In our specific recomputation cases where we never increase the value the risk is pretty low. + // This function, however, does not support arbitrarily increasing the value being transferred, + // and the exception will be triggered. fn update_value_and_recompute_fees(&mut self, value_msat: u64) { - if value_msat == self.hops.last().unwrap().route_hop.fee_msat { - // Nothing to change. - return; - } - assert!(value_msat < self.hops.last().unwrap().route_hop.fee_msat); + assert!(value_msat <= self.hops.last().unwrap().route_hop.fee_msat); let mut total_fee_paid_msat = 0 as u64; for i in (0..self.hops.len()).rev() { @@ -251,6 +255,14 @@ impl PaymentPath { // match htlc_minimum_msat logic. let mut cur_hop_transferred_amount_msat = total_fee_paid_msat + value_msat; if let Some(extra_fees_msat) = cur_hop.htlc_minimum_msat.checked_sub(cur_hop_transferred_amount_msat) { + // Note that there is a risk that *previous hops* (those closer to us, as we go + // payee->our_node here) would exceed their htlc_maximum_msat or available balance. + // + // This might make us end up with a broken route, although this should be super-rare + // in practice, both because of how healthy channels look like, and how we pick + // channels in add_entry. + // Also, this can't be exploited more heavily than *announce a free path and fail + // all payments*. cur_hop_transferred_amount_msat += extra_fees_msat; total_fee_paid_msat += extra_fees_msat; cur_hop_fees_msat += extra_fees_msat; @@ -490,6 +502,10 @@ pub fn get_route(our_node_id: &PublicKey, network: &NetworkGraph, paye // as not sufficient. // TODO: Explore simply adding fee to hit htlc_minimum_msat if contributes_sufficient_value && amount_to_transfer_over_msat >= $directional_info.htlc_minimum_msat { + // Note that low contribution here (limited by available_liquidity_msat) + // might violate htlc_minimum_msat on the hops which are next along the + // payment path (upstream to the payee). To avoid that, we recompute path + // path fees knowing the final path contribution after constructing it. let hm_entry = dist.entry(&$src_node_id); let old_entry = hm_entry.or_insert_with(|| { // If there was previously no known way to access @@ -796,7 +812,15 @@ pub fn get_route(our_node_id: &PublicKey, network: &NetworkGraph, paye ordered_hops.last_mut().unwrap().hop_use_fee_msat = 0; ordered_hops.last_mut().unwrap().route_hop.cltv_expiry_delta = final_cltv; - let payment_path = PaymentPath {hops: ordered_hops}; + let mut payment_path = PaymentPath {hops: ordered_hops}; + + // We could have possibly constructed a slightly inconsistent path: since we reduce + // value being transferred along the way, we could have violated htlc_minimum_msat + // on some channels we already passed (assuming dest->source direction). Here, we + // recompute the fees again, so that if that's the case, we match the currently + // underpaid htlc_minimum_msat with fees. + payment_path.update_value_and_recompute_fees(value_contribution_msat); + // Since a path allows to transfer as much value as // the smallest channel it has ("bottleneck"), we should recompute // the fees so sender HTLC don't overpay fees when traversing