-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 427
Allow configurable min_final_cltv_expiry_delta
#1878
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow configurable min_final_cltv_expiry_delta
#1878
Conversation
a297bba to
354fab2
Compare
64b8e36 to
91db879
Compare
min_final_cltv_expiry_deltamin_final_cltv_expiry_delta
|
Ugh, needs rebase, sorry about that. |
it's the way of the git lol |
01197fb to
147be43
Compare
|
I went the "add param onto existing methods" route because I feel it's compatible with all utility methods. Didn't feel right at the time to create more variants of each method which also seems a bit much. I know optional params are usually not ideal. Open to ideas. |
You can have In my opinion, having this parameter as optional in |
Yeah that too, but wanted to avoid validating the value in many places and just in the lowest level internal functions, so that's why some internal functions just pass through the Option. |
TheBlueMatt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! This is pretty close I think, just some notes about missing test coverage and docs.
TheBlueMatt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, two more comments.
147be43 to
652c45d
Compare
|
Still working on that test coverage, but rebased an pushed some fixes so long. |
Codecov ReportBase: 90.80% // Head: 90.69% // Decreases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1878 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 90.80% 90.69% -0.12%
==========================================
Files 98 97 -1
Lines 51507 50871 -636
Branches 51507 50871 -636
==========================================
- Hits 46770 46135 -635
+ Misses 4737 4736 -1
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
|
Let me know when you get the test coverage in place and I'll take another look. In the mean time, we should get another reviewer on this. |
Should have it up in the morning tomorrow. |
|
Oops. This needs to be changed and tested, right?: rust-lightning/lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Line 2075 in 975984f
Also, I'm not sure where we ever enforced the |
Yes, indeed, we need to compare against the inbound_payment decoded version and reject the payment.
We dont - we enforce |
Cool. Happy if I squash and rebase after fixing up to get it to a cleaner state for reviewers? There's also no rush on this one since I guess 114 is coming in Q1 so I can jump on more review/dual funding while I wait. |
|
Yes, feel free to squash. There's no specific rush, no, but of course always better to have fewer open PRs :) |
|
Looks like this needs rebase. |
|
Back on this now. Rebased locally, but busy debugging a failing test. |
|
The rebase conflicts were a little intense so had to squash some of the fixups otherwise things would get a little wild here. |
d10f48c to
30772df
Compare
| // any payments to succeed. Further, we don't want payments to fail if a block was found while | ||
| // a payment was being routed, so we add an extra block to be safe. | ||
| pub const MIN_FINAL_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA: u32 = HTLC_FAIL_BACK_BUFFER + 3; | ||
| pub const MIN_FINAL_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA: u16 = HTLC_FAIL_BACK_BUFFER as u16 + 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it too much hassle to make HTLC_FAIL_BACK_BUFFER a u16?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was considering it and reckoned it might blow this PR up, but it would be more sanitary. Will wait for some more feedback on it. 👍
30772df to
0eb4550
Compare
0eb4550 to
f180062
Compare
|
Feel free to squash. |
f180062 to
c2fe4d0
Compare
TheBlueMatt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks great. Some style nits but otherwise happy here.
This matches the spec and helps avoid any confusion around naming. We're also then consistent with `cltv_expiry` in an HTLC being the actual block height value for the CLTV and not a delta.
All utility functions for invoice construction will now also accept an Option<>al `min_final_cltv_expiry_delta` which is useful for things like swaps etc. The `min_final_cltv_expiry_delta` will default back to `MIN_FINAL_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA` if `None` is provided.
3a74c8d to
8cd50d8
Compare
|
Feel free to squash |
8cd50d8 to
6fc348d
Compare
Adds two new payment `Method`s for identifying payments with custom `min_final_cltv_expiry_delta` as payments with LDK or user payment hashes. The `min_final_cltv_expiry_delta` value is packed into the first 2 bytes of the expiry timestamp in the payment secret metadata.
6fc348d to
5b53670
Compare
| pub(super) fn verify<L: Deref>(payment_hash: PaymentHash, payment_data: &msgs::FinalOnionHopData, highest_seen_timestamp: u64, keys: &ExpandedKey, logger: &L) -> Result<Option<PaymentPreimage>, ()> | ||
| pub(super) fn verify<L: Deref>(payment_hash: PaymentHash, payment_data: &msgs::FinalOnionHopData, | ||
| highest_seen_timestamp: u64, keys: &ExpandedKey, logger: &L) -> Result< | ||
| (Option<PaymentPreimage>, Option<u16>), ()> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit: this wrapping is not consistent
TheBlueMatt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't bother changing it unless you need to address other feedback.
| R::Target: Router, | ||
| L::Target: Logger, | ||
| { | ||
| if min_final_cltv_expiry_delta.is_some() && min_final_cltv_expiry_delta.unwrap().saturating_add(3) < MIN_FINAL_CLTV_EXPIRY_DELTA { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: this check is redundant
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think so, the others are part of a different flow.
Adds two new payment
Methods for identifying payments with custommin_final_cltv_expiry_deltaas payments with LDK or user paymenthashes.
The
min_final_cltv_expiry_deltavalue is packed into the metadatabytes of the payment secret, taking up 12 bits.
Fixes #1850