use core::{cmp, mem};
use core::cell::RefCell;
use crate::io::Read;
-use crate::sync::{Arc, Mutex, RwLock, RwLockReadGuard, FairRwLock};
+use crate::sync::{Arc, Mutex, RwLock, RwLockReadGuard, FairRwLock, LockTestExt, LockHeldState};
use core::sync::atomic::{AtomicUsize, Ordering};
use core::time::Duration;
use core::ops::Deref;
/// made before LDK version 0.0.104.
payment_hash: Option<PaymentHash>,
},
- /// After a payment is explicitly abandoned by calling [`ChannelManager::abandon_payment`], it
- /// is marked as abandoned until an [`Event::PaymentFailed`] is generated. A payment could also
- /// be marked as abandoned if pathfinding fails repeatedly or retries have been exhausted.
+ /// After a payment's retries are exhausted per the provided [`Retry`], or it is explicitly
+ /// abandoned via [`ChannelManager::abandon_payment`], it is marked as abandoned until all
+ /// pending HTLCs for this payment resolve and an [`Event::PaymentFailed`] is generated.
Abandoned {
/// Hash of the payment that we have given up trying to send.
payment_hash: PaymentHash,
match $internal {
Ok(msg) => Ok(msg),
Err(MsgHandleErrInternal { err, chan_id, shutdown_finish }) => {
- #[cfg(any(feature = "_test_utils", test))]
- {
- // In testing, ensure there are no deadlocks where the lock is already held upon
- // entering the macro.
- debug_assert!($self.pending_events.try_lock().is_ok());
- debug_assert!($self.per_peer_state.try_write().is_ok());
- }
+ // In testing, ensure there are no deadlocks where the lock is already held upon
+ // entering the macro.
+ debug_assert_ne!($self.pending_events.held_by_thread(), LockHeldState::HeldByThread);
+ debug_assert_ne!($self.per_peer_state.held_by_thread(), LockHeldState::HeldByThread);
let mut msg_events = Vec::with_capacity(2);
///
/// This can be useful for payments that may have been prepared, but ultimately not sent, as a
/// result of a crash. If such a payment exists, is not listed here, and an
- /// [`Event::PaymentSent`] has not been received, you may consider retrying the payment.
+ /// [`Event::PaymentSent`] has not been received, you may consider resending the payment.
///
/// [`Event::PaymentSent`]: events::Event::PaymentSent
pub fn list_recent_payments(&self) -> Vec<RecentPaymentDetails> {
/// If a pending payment is currently in-flight with the same [`PaymentId`] provided, this
/// method will error with an [`APIError::InvalidRoute`]. Note, however, that once a payment
/// is no longer pending (either via [`ChannelManager::abandon_payment`], or handling of an
- /// [`Event::PaymentSent`]) LDK will not stop you from sending a second payment with the same
- /// [`PaymentId`].
+ /// [`Event::PaymentSent`] or [`Event::PaymentFailed`]) LDK will not stop you from sending a
+ /// second payment with the same [`PaymentId`].
///
/// Thus, in order to ensure duplicate payments are not sent, you should implement your own
/// tracking of payments, including state to indicate once a payment has completed. Because you
/// [`Route`], we assume the invoice had the basic_mpp feature set.
///
/// [`Event::PaymentSent`]: events::Event::PaymentSent
+ /// [`Event::PaymentFailed`]: events::Event::PaymentFailed
/// [`PeerManager::process_events`]: crate::ln::peer_handler::PeerManager::process_events
/// [`ChannelMonitorUpdateStatus::InProgress`]: crate::chain::ChannelMonitorUpdateStatus::InProgress
pub fn send_payment(&self, route: &Route, payment_hash: PaymentHash, payment_secret: &Option<PaymentSecret>, payment_id: PaymentId) -> Result<(), PaymentSendFailure> {
}
- /// Retries a payment along the given [`Route`].
- ///
- /// Errors returned are a superset of those returned from [`send_payment`], so see
- /// [`send_payment`] documentation for more details on errors. This method will also error if the
- /// retry amount puts the payment more than 10% over the payment's total amount, if the payment
- /// for the given `payment_id` cannot be found (likely due to timeout or success), or if
- /// further retries have been disabled with [`abandon_payment`].
- ///
- /// [`send_payment`]: [`ChannelManager::send_payment`]
- /// [`abandon_payment`]: [`ChannelManager::abandon_payment`]
- pub fn retry_payment(&self, route: &Route, payment_id: PaymentId) -> Result<(), PaymentSendFailure> {
- let best_block_height = self.best_block.read().unwrap().height();
- self.pending_outbound_payments.retry_payment_with_route(route, payment_id, &self.entropy_source, &self.node_signer, best_block_height,
- |path, payment_params, payment_hash, payment_secret, total_value, cur_height, payment_id, keysend_preimage, session_priv|
- self.send_payment_along_path(path, payment_params, payment_hash, payment_secret, total_value, cur_height, payment_id, keysend_preimage, session_priv))
- }
-
- /// Signals that no further retries for the given payment will occur.
+ /// Signals that no further retries for the given payment should occur. Useful if you have a
+ /// pending outbound payment with retries remaining, but wish to stop retrying the payment before
+ /// retries are exhausted.
///
- /// After this method returns, no future calls to [`retry_payment`] for the given `payment_id`
- /// are allowed. If no [`Event::PaymentFailed`] event had been generated before, one will be
- /// generated as soon as there are no remaining pending HTLCs for this payment.
+ /// If no [`Event::PaymentFailed`] event had been generated before, one will be generated as soon
+ /// as there are no remaining pending HTLCs for this payment.
///
/// Note that calling this method does *not* prevent a payment from succeeding. You must still
/// wait until you receive either a [`Event::PaymentFailed`] or [`Event::PaymentSent`] event to
/// determine the ultimate status of a payment.
///
/// If an [`Event::PaymentFailed`] event is generated and we restart without this
- /// [`ChannelManager`] having been persisted, the payment may still be in the pending state
- /// upon restart. This allows further calls to [`retry_payment`] (and requiring a second call
- /// to [`abandon_payment`] to mark the payment as failed again). Otherwise, future calls to
- /// [`retry_payment`] will fail with [`PaymentSendFailure::ParameterError`].
+ /// [`ChannelManager`] having been persisted, another [`Event::PaymentFailed`] may be generated.
///
- /// [`abandon_payment`]: Self::abandon_payment
- /// [`retry_payment`]: Self::retry_payment
/// [`Event::PaymentFailed`]: events::Event::PaymentFailed
/// [`Event::PaymentSent`]: events::Event::PaymentSent
pub fn abandon_payment(&self, payment_id: PaymentId) {
let _persistence_guard = PersistenceNotifierGuard::notify_on_drop(&self.total_consistency_lock, &self.persistence_notifier);
- if let Some(payment_failed_ev) = self.pending_outbound_payments.abandon_payment(payment_id) {
- self.pending_events.lock().unwrap().push(payment_failed_ev);
- }
+ self.pending_outbound_payments.abandon_payment(payment_id, &self.pending_events);
}
/// Send a spontaneous payment, which is a payment that does not require the recipient to have
let best_block_height = self.best_block.read().unwrap().height();
self.pending_outbound_payments.check_retry_payments(&self.router, || self.list_usable_channels(),
- || self.compute_inflight_htlcs(), &self.entropy_source, &self.node_signer, best_block_height, &self.logger,
+ || self.compute_inflight_htlcs(), &self.entropy_source, &self.node_signer, best_block_height,
+ &self.pending_events, &self.logger,
|path, payment_params, payment_hash, payment_secret, total_value, cur_height, payment_id, keysend_preimage, session_priv|
self.send_payment_along_path(path, payment_params, payment_hash, payment_secret, total_value, cur_height, payment_id, keysend_preimage, session_priv));
/// Fails an HTLC backwards to the sender of it to us.
/// Note that we do not assume that channels corresponding to failed HTLCs are still available.
fn fail_htlc_backwards_internal(&self, source: &HTLCSource, payment_hash: &PaymentHash, onion_error: &HTLCFailReason, destination: HTLCDestination) {
- #[cfg(any(feature = "_test_utils", test))]
- {
- // Ensure that the peer state channel storage lock is not held when calling this
- // function.
- // This ensures that future code doesn't introduce a lock_order requirement for
- // `forward_htlcs` to be locked after the `per_peer_state` peer locks, which calling
- // this function with any `per_peer_state` peer lock aquired would.
- let per_peer_state = self.per_peer_state.read().unwrap();
- for (_, peer) in per_peer_state.iter() {
- debug_assert!(peer.try_lock().is_ok());
- }
+ // Ensure that no peer state channel storage lock is held when calling this function.
+ // This ensures that future code doesn't introduce a lock-order requirement for
+ // `forward_htlcs` to be locked after the `per_peer_state` peer locks, which calling
+ // this function with any `per_peer_state` peer lock acquired would.
+ for (_, peer) in self.per_peer_state.read().unwrap().iter() {
+ debug_assert_ne!(peer.held_by_thread(), LockHeldState::HeldByThread);
}
//TODO: There is a timing attack here where if a node fails an HTLC back to us they can
inbound_payment_key: expanded_inbound_key,
pending_inbound_payments: Mutex::new(pending_inbound_payments),
- pending_outbound_payments: OutboundPayments { pending_outbound_payments: Mutex::new(pending_outbound_payments.unwrap()) },
+ pending_outbound_payments: OutboundPayments { pending_outbound_payments: Mutex::new(pending_outbound_payments.unwrap()), retry_lock: Mutex::new(()), },
pending_intercepted_htlcs: Mutex::new(pending_intercepted_htlcs.unwrap()),
forward_htlcs: Mutex::new(forward_htlcs),
projects / rust-lightning / blobdiff