}
}
-
let value_to_self_msat: i64 = (self.value_to_self_msat - local_htlc_total_msat) as i64 + value_to_self_msat_offset;
- let value_to_remote_msat: i64 = (self.channel_value_satoshis * 1000 - self.value_to_self_msat - remote_htlc_total_msat) as i64 - value_to_self_msat_offset;
+ assert!(value_to_self_msat >= 0);
+ // Note that in case they have several just-awaiting-last-RAA fulfills in-progress (ie
+ // AwaitingRemoteRevokeToRemove or AwaitingRemovedRemoteRevoke) we may have allowed them to
+ // "violate" their reserve value by couting those against it. Thus, we have to convert
+ // everything to i64 before subtracting as otherwise we can overflow.
+ let value_to_remote_msat: i64 = (self.channel_value_satoshis * 1000) as i64 - (self.value_to_self_msat as i64) - (remote_htlc_total_msat as i64) - value_to_self_msat_offset;
+ assert!(value_to_remote_msat >= 0);
#[cfg(debug_assertions)]
{
// Check our_channel_reserve_satoshis (we're getting paid, so they have to at least meet
// the reserve_satoshis we told them to always have as direct payment so that they lose
// something if we punish them for broadcasting an old state).
- if htlc_inbound_value_msat + msg.amount_msat + self.value_to_self_msat > (self.channel_value_satoshis - Channel::get_our_channel_reserve_satoshis(self.channel_value_satoshis)) * 1000 {
+ // Note that we don't really care about having a small/no to_remote output in our local
+ // commitment transactions, as the purpose of the channel reserve is to ensure we can
+ // punish *them* if they misbehave, so we discount any outbound HTLCs which will not be
+ // present in the next commitment transaction we send them (at least for fulfilled ones,
+ // failed ones won't modify value_to_self).
+ // Note that we will send HTLCs which another instance of rust-lightning would think
+ // violate the reserve value if we do not do this (as we forget inbound HTLCs from the
+ // Channel state once they will not be present in the next received commitment
+ // transaction).
+ let mut removed_outbound_total_msat = 0;
+ for ref htlc in self.pending_outbound_htlcs.iter() {
+ if let OutboundHTLCState::AwaitingRemoteRevokeToRemove(None) = htlc.state {
+ removed_outbound_total_msat += htlc.amount_msat;
+ } else if let OutboundHTLCState::AwaitingRemovedRemoteRevoke(None) = htlc.state {
+ removed_outbound_total_msat += htlc.amount_msat;
+ }
+ }
+ if htlc_inbound_value_msat + msg.amount_msat + self.value_to_self_msat > (self.channel_value_satoshis - Channel::get_our_channel_reserve_satoshis(self.channel_value_satoshis)) * 1000 + removed_outbound_total_msat {
return Err(ChannelError::Close("Remote HTLC add would put them over their reserve value"));
}
if self.next_remote_htlc_id != msg.htlc_id {
}}
}
+macro_rules! expect_payment_received {
+ ($node: expr, $expected_payment_hash: expr, $expected_recv_value: expr) => {
+ let events = $node.node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
+ match events[0] {
+ Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, amt } => {
+ assert_eq!($expected_payment_hash, *payment_hash);
+ assert_eq!($expected_recv_value, amt);
+ },
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
+ }
+ }
+}
+
+macro_rules! expect_payment_sent {
+ ($node: expr, $expected_payment_preimage: expr) => {
+ let events = $node.node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
+ match events[0] {
+ Event::PaymentSent { ref payment_preimage } => {
+ assert_eq!($expected_payment_preimage, *payment_preimage);
+ },
+ _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
+ }
+ }
+}
+
pub fn send_along_route_with_hash(origin_node: &Node, route: Route, expected_route: &[&Node], recv_value: u64, our_payment_hash: PaymentHash) {
let mut payment_event = {
origin_node.node.send_payment(route, our_payment_hash).unwrap();
if !skip_last {
last_update_fulfill_dance!(origin_node, expected_route.first().unwrap());
- let events = origin_node.node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
- assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
- match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentSent { payment_preimage } => {
- assert_eq!(payment_preimage, our_payment_preimage);
- },
- _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
- }
+ expect_payment_sent!(origin_node, our_payment_preimage);
}
}
}
}
-macro_rules! expect_payment_received {
- ($node: expr, $expected_payment_hash: expr, $expected_recv_value: expr) => {
- let events = $node.node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
- assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
- match events[0] {
- Event::PaymentReceived { ref payment_hash, amt } => {
- assert_eq!($expected_payment_hash, *payment_hash);
- assert_eq!($expected_recv_value, amt);
- },
- _ => panic!("Unexpected event"),
- }
- }
-}
-
macro_rules! get_channel_value_stat {
($node: expr, $channel_id: expr) => {{
let chan_lock = $node.node.channel_state.lock().unwrap();
do_channel_reserve_test(true);
}
+#[test]
+fn channel_reserve_in_flight_removes() {
+ // In cases where one side claims an HTLC, it thinks it has additional available funds that it
+ // can send to its counterparty, but due to update ordering, the other side may not yet have
+ // considered those HTLCs fully removed.
+ // This tests that we don't count HTLCs which will not be included in the next remote
+ // commitment transaction towards the reserve value (as it implies no commitment transaction
+ // will be generated which violates the remote reserve value).
+ // This was broken previously, and discovered by the chanmon_fail_consistency fuzz test.
+ // To test this we:
+ // * route two HTLCs from A to B (note that, at a high level, this test is checking that, when
+ // you consider the values of both of these HTLCs, B may not send an HTLC back to A, but if
+ // you only consider the value of the first HTLC, it may not),
+ // * start routing a third HTLC from A to B,
+ // * claim the first two HTLCs (though B will generate an update_fulfill for one, and put
+ // the other claim in its holding cell, as it immediately goes into AwaitingRAA),
+ // * deliver the first fulfill from B
+ // * deliver the update_add and an RAA from A, resulting in B freeing the second holding cell
+ // claim,
+ // * deliver A's response CS and RAA.
+ // This results in A having the second HTLC in AwaitingRemovedRemoteRevoke, but B having
+ // removed it fully. B now has the push_msat plus the first two HTLCs in value.
+ // * Now B happily sends another HTLC, potentially violating its reserve value from A's point
+ // of view (if A counts the AwaitingRemovedRemoteRevoke HTLC).
+ let mut nodes = create_network(2);
+ let chan_1 = create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1);
+
+ let b_chan_values = get_channel_value_stat!(nodes[1], chan_1.2);
+ // Route the first two HTLCs.
+ let (payment_preimage_1, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], b_chan_values.channel_reserve_msat - b_chan_values.value_to_self_msat - 10000);
+ let (payment_preimage_2, _) = route_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], 20000);
+
+ // Start routing the third HTLC (this is just used to get everyone in the right state).
+ let (payment_preimage_3, payment_hash_3) = get_payment_preimage_hash!(nodes[0]);
+ let send_1 = {
+ let route = nodes[0].router.get_route(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), None, &[], 100000, TEST_FINAL_CLTV).unwrap();
+ nodes[0].node.send_payment(route, payment_hash_3).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let mut events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
+ SendEvent::from_event(events.remove(0))
+ };
+
+ // Now claim both of the first two HTLCs on B's end, putting B in AwaitingRAA and generating an
+ // initial fulfill/CS.
+ assert!(nodes[1].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage_1));
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let bs_removes = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ // This claim goes in B's holding cell, allowing us to have a pending B->A RAA which does not
+ // remove the second HTLC when we send the HTLC back from B to A.
+ assert!(nodes[1].node.claim_funds(payment_preimage_2));
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ assert!(nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
+
+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fulfill_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_removes.update_fulfill_htlcs[0]).unwrap();
+ nodes[0].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_removes.commitment_signed).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[0], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+ expect_payment_sent!(nodes[0], payment_preimage_1);
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_update_add_htlc(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &send_1.msgs[0]).unwrap();
+ nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &send_1.commitment_msg).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ // B is already AwaitingRAA, so cant generate a CS here
+ let bs_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let bs_cs = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_cs = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[0], nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_cs.commitment_signed).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let bs_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ // The second HTLCis removed, but as A is in AwaitingRAA it can't generate a CS here, so the
+ // RAA that B generated above doesn't fully resolve the second HTLC from A's point of view.
+ // However, the RAA A generates here *does* fully resolve the HTLC from B's point of view (as A
+ // can no longer broadcast a commitment transaction with it and B has the preimage so can go
+ // on-chain as necessary).
+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fulfill_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_cs.update_fulfill_htlcs[0]).unwrap();
+ nodes[0].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_cs.commitment_signed).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[0], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+ expect_payment_sent!(nodes[0], payment_preimage_2);
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ assert!(nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events().is_empty());
+
+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[1]);
+ expect_payment_received!(nodes[1], payment_hash_3, 100000);
+
+ // Note that as this RAA was generated before the delivery of the update_fulfill it shouldn't
+ // resolve the second HTLC from A's point of view.
+ nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_cs = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[0], nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ // Now that B doesn't have the second RAA anymore, but A still does, send a payment from B back
+ // to A to ensure that A doesn't count the almost-removed HTLC in update_add processing.
+ let (payment_preimage_4, payment_hash_4) = get_payment_preimage_hash!(nodes[1]);
+ let send_2 = {
+ let route = nodes[1].router.get_route(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), None, &[], 10000, TEST_FINAL_CLTV).unwrap();
+ nodes[1].node.send_payment(route, payment_hash_4).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let mut events = nodes[1].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
+ SendEvent::from_event(events.remove(0))
+ };
+
+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_add_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &send_2.msgs[0]).unwrap();
+ nodes[0].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &send_2.commitment_msg).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[0], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ // Now just resolve all the outstanding messages/HTLCs for completeness...
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_cs.commitment_signed).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let bs_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+
+ nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+ let as_cs = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[0], nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[1].node.handle_commitment_signed(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &as_cs.commitment_signed).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
+ let bs_raa = get_event_msg!(nodes[1], MessageSendEvent::SendRevokeAndACK, nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
+
+ nodes[0].node.handle_revoke_and_ack(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &bs_raa).unwrap();
+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+
+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[0]);
+ expect_payment_received!(nodes[0], payment_hash_4, 10000);
+
+ claim_payment(&nodes[1], &[&nodes[0]], payment_preimage_4);
+ claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], payment_preimage_3);
+}
+
#[test]
fn channel_monitor_network_test() {
// Simple test which builds a network of ChannelManagers, connects them to each other, and
projects / rust-lightning / commitdiff