fn test_chan_reserve_violation_outbound_htlc_inbound_chan() {
let mut chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
// Set the fee rate for the channel very high, to the point where the fundee
- // sending any amount would result in a channel reserve violation. In this test
- // we check that we would be prevented from sending an HTLC in this situation.
+ // sending any above-dust amount would result in a channel reserve violation.
+ // In this test we check that we would be prevented from sending an HTLC in
+ // this situation.
chanmon_cfgs[0].fee_estimator = test_utils::TestFeeEstimator { sat_per_kw: 6000 };
chanmon_cfgs[1].fee_estimator = test_utils::TestFeeEstimator { sat_per_kw: 6000 };
let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
}}
}
- let (route, our_payment_hash, _) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(1000);
+ let (route, our_payment_hash, _) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(4843000);
unwrap_send_err!(nodes[1].node.send_payment(&route, our_payment_hash, &None), true, APIError::ChannelUnavailable { ref err },
assert_eq!(err, "Cannot send value that would put counterparty balance under holder-announced channel reserve value"));
assert!(nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
}
+#[test]
+fn test_chan_reserve_dust_inbound_htlcs_outbound_chan() {
+ // Test that if we receive many dust HTLCs over an outbound channel, they don't count when
+ // calculating our commitment transaction fee (this was previously broken).
+ let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+ let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+ let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None, None]);
+ let mut nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+
+ // Set nodes[0]'s balance such that they will consider any above-dust received HTLC to be a
+ // channel reserve violation (so their balance is channel reserve (1000 sats) + commitment
+ // transaction fee with 0 HTLCs (183 sats)).
+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 0, 1, 100000, 98817000, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
+
+ let dust_amt = 546000; // Dust amount
+ // In the previous code, routing this dust payment would cause nodes[0] to perceive a channel
+ // reserve violation even though it's a dust HTLC and therefore shouldn't count towards the
+ // commitment transaction fee.
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[1], &[&nodes[0]], dust_amt);
+}
+
+#[test]
+fn test_chan_reserve_dust_inbound_htlcs_inbound_chan() {
+ // Test that if we receive many dust HTLCs over an inbound channel, they don't count when
+ // calculating our counterparty's commitment transaction fee (this was previously broken).
+ let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+ let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+ let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None, None]);
+ let mut nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 0, 1, 100000, 98000000, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
+
+ let payment_amt = 46000; // Dust amount
+ // In the previous code, these first four payments would succeed.
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+
+ // Then these next 5 would be interpreted by nodes[1] as violating the fee spike buffer.
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+
+ // And this last payment previously resulted in nodes[1] closing on its inbound-channel
+ // counterparty, because it counted all the previous dust HTLCs against nodes[0]'s commitment
+ // transaction fee and therefore perceived this next payment as a channel reserve violation.
+ let (_, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_amt);
+}
+
#[test]
fn test_chan_reserve_violation_inbound_htlc_inbound_chan() {
let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(3);
let commit_tx_fee_0_htlcs = 2*commit_tx_fee_msat(feerate, 1);
let recv_value_3 = commit_tx_fee_2_htlcs - commit_tx_fee_0_htlcs - total_fee_msat;
- {
- let (route, our_payment_hash, _) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(recv_value_3 + 1);
- let err = nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, our_payment_hash, &None).err().unwrap();
- match err {
- PaymentSendFailure::AllFailedRetrySafe(ref fails) => {
- match &fails[0] {
- &APIError::ChannelUnavailable{ref err} =>
- assert!(regex::Regex::new(r"Cannot send value that would put our balance under counterparty-announced channel reserve value \(\d+\)").unwrap().is_match(err)),
- _ => panic!("Unexpected error variant"),
- }
- },
- _ => panic!("Unexpected error variant"),
- }
- assert!(nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
- nodes[0].logger.assert_log_contains("lightning::ln::channelmanager".to_string(), "Cannot send value that would put our balance under counterparty-announced channel reserve value".to_string(), 3);
- }
-
send_payment(&nodes[0], &vec![&nodes[1], &nodes[2]][..], recv_value_3, recv_value_3);
let commit_tx_fee_1_htlc = 2*commit_tx_fee_msat(feerate, 1 + 1);
projects / rust-lightning / blobdiff