From 7b842b61f8b9c81cf5eb5565b669bc4ef609863d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: bmancini55 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 16:30:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Simplify sequencing of handle_query_channel_range Modify NetGraphMsgHandler::handle_query_channel_range to always use first_blocknum=0 in replies. This is spec compliant after changes to make sequence completion explicity using sync_complete. --- lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs | 68 +++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) diff --git a/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs b/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs index e11a53b7..04e4eb14 100644 --- a/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs +++ b/lightning/src/routing/network_graph.rs @@ -374,28 +374,18 @@ impl RoutingMessageHandler for N let mut pending_events = self.pending_events.lock().unwrap(); let batch_count = batches.len(); for (batch_index, batch) in batches.into_iter().enumerate() { - // Per spec, the initial first_blocknum needs to be <= the query's first_blocknum. - // Use the query's values since we don't use pre-processed reply ranges. - let first_blocknum = if batch_index == 0 { - msg.first_blocknum - } - // Subsequent replies must be >= the last sent first_blocknum. Use the first block - // in the new batch. Batches beyond the first one cannot be empty. - else { - block_from_scid(batch.first().unwrap()) - }; - - // Per spec, the last end_blocknum needs to be >= the query's end_blocknum. Last - // reply calculates difference between the query's end_blocknum and the start of the reply. - // Overflow safe since end_blocknum=msg.first_block_num+msg.number_of_blocks and first_blocknum - // will be either msg.first_blocknum or a higher block height. + // Per spec, the initial first_blocknum needs to be <= the query's first_blocknum and subsequent + // must be >= the prior reply. We'll simplify this by using zero since its still spec compliant and + // sequence completion is now explicitly. + let first_blocknum = 0; + + // Per spec, the final end_blocknum needs to be >= the query's end_blocknum, so we'll use the + // query's value. Prior batches must use the number of blocks that fit into the message. We'll + // base this off the last SCID in the batch since we've somewhat abusing first_blocknum. let number_of_blocks = if batch_index == batch_count-1 { - msg.end_blocknum() - first_blocknum - } - // Prior replies should use the number of blocks that fit into the reply. Overflow - // safe since first_blocknum is always <= last SCID's block. - else { - block_from_scid(batch.last().unwrap()) - first_blocknum + 1 + msg.end_blocknum() + } else { + block_from_scid(batch.last().unwrap()) + 1 }; // Only true for the last message in a sequence @@ -2209,7 +2199,6 @@ mod tests { // used for testing resumption on same block scids.push(scid_from_parts(108001, 1, 0).unwrap()); - scids.push(scid_from_parts(108001, 2, 0).unwrap()); for scid in scids { let unsigned_announcement = UnsignedChannelAnnouncement { @@ -2307,8 +2296,8 @@ mod tests { vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 0xffffff, - number_of_blocks: 1, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 0x01000000, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: vec![] }, @@ -2321,15 +2310,15 @@ mod tests { &node_id_2, QueryChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 0x00800000, + first_blocknum: 1000, number_of_blocks: 1000, }, true, vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 0x00800000, - number_of_blocks: 1000, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 2000, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: vec![], } @@ -2349,8 +2338,8 @@ mod tests { vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 0xfe0000, - number_of_blocks: 0xffffffff - 0xfe0000, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 0xffffffff, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: vec![ 0xfffffe_ffffff_ffff, // max @@ -2372,8 +2361,8 @@ mod tests { vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 100000, - number_of_blocks: 8000, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 108000, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: (100000..=107999) .map(|block| scid_from_parts(block, 0, 0).unwrap()) @@ -2395,8 +2384,8 @@ mod tests { vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 100000, - number_of_blocks: 8000, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 108000, sync_complete: false, short_channel_ids: (100000..=107999) .map(|block| scid_from_parts(block, 0, 0).unwrap()) @@ -2404,8 +2393,8 @@ mod tests { }, ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 108000, - number_of_blocks: 1, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 108001, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: vec![ scid_from_parts(108000, 0, 0).unwrap(), @@ -2427,8 +2416,8 @@ mod tests { vec![ ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 100002, - number_of_blocks: 8000, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 108002, sync_complete: false, short_channel_ids: (100002..=108001) .map(|block| scid_from_parts(block, 0, 0).unwrap()) @@ -2436,12 +2425,11 @@ mod tests { }, ReplyChannelRange { chain_hash: chain_hash.clone(), - first_blocknum: 108001, - number_of_blocks: 1, + first_blocknum: 0, + number_of_blocks: 108002, sync_complete: true, short_channel_ids: vec![ scid_from_parts(108001, 1, 0).unwrap(), - scid_from_parts(108001, 2, 0).unwrap(), ], } ] -- 2.30.2