Merge pull request #1039 from lightning-signer/2021-08-more-enforcement

Introduce EnforcementState, validate release of revocation secret

Author: TheBlueMatt

fuzz/src/chanmon_consistency.rs

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ use lightning::ln::channel::FEE_SPIKE_BUFFER_FEE_INCREASE_MULTIPLE;
 use lightning::ln::features::{ChannelFeatures, InitFeatures, NodeFeatures};
 use lightning::ln::msgs::{CommitmentUpdate, ChannelMessageHandler, DecodeError, UpdateAddHTLC, Init};
 use lightning::ln::script::ShutdownScript;
-use lightning::util::enforcing_trait_impls::{EnforcingSigner, INITIAL_REVOKED_COMMITMENT_NUMBER};
+use lightning::util::enforcing_trait_impls::{EnforcingSigner, EnforcementState};
 use lightning::util::errors::APIError;
 use lightning::util::events;
 use lightning::util::logger::Logger;
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ impl chain::Watch<EnforcingSigner> for TestChainMonitor {
 struct KeyProvider {
 	node_id: u8,
 	rand_bytes_id: atomic::AtomicU32,
-	revoked_commitments: Mutex<HashMap<[u8;32], Arc<Mutex<u64>>>>,
+	enforcement_states: Mutex<HashMap<[u8;32], Arc<Mutex<EnforcementState>>>>,
 }
 impl KeysInterface for KeyProvider {
 	type Signer = EnforcingSigner;
@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ impl KeysInterface for KeyProvider {
 			channel_value_satoshis,
 			[0; 32],
 		);
-		let revoked_commitment = self.make_revoked_commitment_cell(keys.commitment_seed);
+		let revoked_commitment = self.make_enforcement_state_cell(keys.commitment_seed);
 		EnforcingSigner::new_with_revoked(keys, revoked_commitment, false)
 	}
 
@@ -213,14 +213,11 @@ impl KeysInterface for KeyProvider {
 		let mut reader = std::io::Cursor::new(buffer);
 
 		let inner: InMemorySigner = Readable::read(&mut reader)?;
-		let revoked_commitment = self.make_revoked_commitment_cell(inner.commitment_seed);
-
-		let last_commitment_number = Readable::read(&mut reader)?;
+		let state = self.make_enforcement_state_cell(inner.commitment_seed);
 
 		Ok(EnforcingSigner {
 			inner,
-			last_commitment_number: Arc::new(Mutex::new(last_commitment_number)),
-			revoked_commitment,
+			state,
 			disable_revocation_policy_check: false,
 		})
 	}
@@ -231,10 +228,10 @@ impl KeysInterface for KeyProvider {
 }
 
 impl KeyProvider {
-	fn make_revoked_commitment_cell(&self, commitment_seed: [u8; 32]) -> Arc<Mutex<u64>> {
-		let mut revoked_commitments = self.revoked_commitments.lock().unwrap();
+	fn make_enforcement_state_cell(&self, commitment_seed: [u8; 32]) -> Arc<Mutex<EnforcementState>> {
+		let mut revoked_commitments = self.enforcement_states.lock().unwrap();
 		if !revoked_commitments.contains_key(&commitment_seed) {
-			revoked_commitments.insert(commitment_seed, Arc::new(Mutex::new(INITIAL_REVOKED_COMMITMENT_NUMBER)));
+			revoked_commitments.insert(commitment_seed, Arc::new(Mutex::new(EnforcementState::new())));
 		}
 		let cell = revoked_commitments.get(&commitment_seed).unwrap();
 		Arc::clone(cell)
@@ -351,7 +348,7 @@ pub fn do_test<Out: test_logger::Output>(data: &[u8], out: Out) {
 	macro_rules! make_node {
 		($node_id: expr, $fee_estimator: expr) => { {
 			let logger: Arc<dyn Logger> = Arc::new(test_logger::TestLogger::new($node_id.to_string(), out.clone()));
-			let keys_manager = Arc::new(KeyProvider { node_id: $node_id, rand_bytes_id: atomic::AtomicU32::new(0), revoked_commitments: Mutex::new(HashMap::new()) });
+			let keys_manager = Arc::new(KeyProvider { node_id: $node_id, rand_bytes_id: atomic::AtomicU32::new(0), enforcement_states: Mutex::new(HashMap::new()) });
 			let monitor = Arc::new(TestChainMonitor::new(broadcast.clone(), logger.clone(), $fee_estimator.clone(), Arc::new(TestPersister{}), Arc::clone(&keys_manager)));
 
 			let mut config = UserConfig::default();

fuzz/src/full_stack.rs

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ use lightning::routing::network_graph::NetGraphMsgHandler;
 use lightning::util::config::UserConfig;
 use lightning::util::errors::APIError;
 use lightning::util::events::Event;
-use lightning::util::enforcing_trait_impls::EnforcingSigner;
+use lightning::util::enforcing_trait_impls::{EnforcingSigner, EnforcementState};
 use lightning::util::logger::Logger;
 use lightning::util::ser::Readable;
 
@@ -315,8 +315,15 @@ impl KeysInterface for KeyProvider {
 		(ctr >> 8*7) as u8, (ctr >> 8*6) as u8, (ctr >> 8*5) as u8, (ctr >> 8*4) as u8, (ctr >> 8*3) as u8, (ctr >> 8*2) as u8, (ctr >> 8*1) as u8, 14, (ctr >> 8*0) as u8]
 	}
 
-	fn read_chan_signer(&self, data: &[u8]) -> Result<EnforcingSigner, DecodeError> {
-		EnforcingSigner::read(&mut std::io::Cursor::new(data))
+	fn read_chan_signer(&self, mut data: &[u8]) -> Result<EnforcingSigner, DecodeError> {
+		let inner: InMemorySigner = Readable::read(&mut data)?;
+		let state = Arc::new(Mutex::new(EnforcementState::new()));
+
+		Ok(EnforcingSigner::new_with_revoked(
+			inner,
+			state,
+			false
+		))
 	}
 
 	fn sign_invoice(&self, _invoice_preimage: Vec<u8>) -> Result<RecoverableSignature, ()> {

lightning/src/chain/keysinterface.rs

@@ -212,6 +212,13 @@ pub trait BaseSign {
 	/// Note that the commitment number starts at (1 << 48) - 1 and counts backwards.
 	// TODO: return a Result so we can signal a validation error
 	fn release_commitment_secret(&self, idx: u64) -> [u8; 32];
+	/// Validate the counterparty's signatures on the holder commitment transaction and HTLCs.
+	///
+	/// This is required in order for the signer to make sure that releasing a commitment
+	/// secret won't leave us without a broadcastable holder transaction.
+	/// Policy checks should be implemented in this function, including checking the amount
+	/// sent to us and checking the HTLCs.
+	fn validate_holder_commitment(&self, holder_tx: &HolderCommitmentTransaction) -> Result<(), ()>;
 	/// Gets the holder's channel public keys and basepoints
 	fn pubkeys(&self) -> &ChannelPublicKeys;
 	/// Gets an arbitrary identifier describing the set of keys which are provided back to you in
@@ -222,9 +229,17 @@ pub trait BaseSign {
 	/// Create a signature for a counterparty's commitment transaction and associated HTLC transactions.
 	///
 	/// Note that if signing fails or is rejected, the channel will be force-closed.
+	///
+	/// Policy checks should be implemented in this function, including checking the amount
+	/// sent to us and checking the HTLCs.
 	//
 	// TODO: Document the things someone using this interface should enforce before signing.
 	fn sign_counterparty_commitment(&self, commitment_tx: &CommitmentTransaction, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<secp256k1::All>) -> Result<(Signature, Vec<Signature>), ()>;
+	/// Validate the counterparty's revocation.
+	///
+	/// This is required in order for the signer to make sure that the state has moved
+	/// forward and it is safe to sign the next counterparty commitment.
+	fn validate_counterparty_revocation(&self, idx: u64, secret: &SecretKey) -> Result<(), ()>;
 
 	/// Create a signatures for a holder's commitment transaction and its claiming HTLC transactions.
 	/// This will only ever be called with a non-revoked commitment_tx.  This will be called with the
@@ -558,6 +573,10 @@ impl BaseSign for InMemorySigner {
 		chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&self.commitment_seed, idx)
 	}
 
+	fn validate_holder_commitment(&self, _holder_tx: &HolderCommitmentTransaction) -> Result<(), ()> {
+		Ok(())
+	}
+
 	fn pubkeys(&self) -> &ChannelPublicKeys { &self.holder_channel_pubkeys }
 	fn channel_keys_id(&self) -> [u8; 32] { self.channel_keys_id }
 
@@ -584,6 +603,10 @@ impl BaseSign for InMemorySigner {
 		Ok((commitment_sig, htlc_sigs))
 	}
 
+	fn validate_counterparty_revocation(&self, _idx: u64, _secret: &SecretKey) -> Result<(), ()> {
+		Ok(())
+	}
+
 	fn sign_holder_commitment_and_htlcs(&self, commitment_tx: &HolderCommitmentTransaction, secp_ctx: &Secp256k1<secp256k1::All>) -> Result<(Signature, Vec<Signature>), ()> {
 		let funding_pubkey = PublicKey::from_secret_key(secp_ctx, &self.funding_key);
 		let funding_redeemscript = make_funding_redeemscript(&funding_pubkey, &self.counterparty_pubkeys().funding_pubkey);

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -1791,6 +1791,9 @@ impl<Signer: Sign> Channel<Signer> {
 			self.counterparty_funding_pubkey()
 		);
 
+		self.holder_signer.validate_holder_commitment(&holder_commitment_tx)
+			.map_err(|_| ChannelError::Close("Failed to validate our commitment".to_owned()))?;
+
 		// Now that we're past error-generating stuff, update our local state:
 
 		let funding_redeemscript = self.get_funding_redeemscript();
@@ -1865,6 +1868,9 @@ impl<Signer: Sign> Channel<Signer> {
 			self.counterparty_funding_pubkey()
 		);
 
+		self.holder_signer.validate_holder_commitment(&holder_commitment_tx)
+			.map_err(|_| ChannelError::Close("Failed to validate our commitment".to_owned()))?;
+
 
 		let funding_redeemscript = self.get_funding_redeemscript();
 		let funding_txo = self.get_funding_txo().unwrap();
@@ -2502,6 +2508,8 @@ impl<Signer: Sign> Channel<Signer> {
 		);
 
 		let next_per_commitment_point = self.holder_signer.get_per_commitment_point(self.cur_holder_commitment_transaction_number - 1, &self.secp_ctx);
+		self.holder_signer.validate_holder_commitment(&holder_commitment_tx)
+			.map_err(|_| (None, ChannelError::Close("Failed to validate our commitment".to_owned())))?;
 		let per_commitment_secret = self.holder_signer.release_commitment_secret(self.cur_holder_commitment_transaction_number + 1);
 
 		// Update state now that we've passed all the can-fail calls...
@@ -2738,8 +2746,10 @@ impl<Signer: Sign> Channel<Signer> {
 			return Err(ChannelError::Close("Peer sent revoke_and_ack after we'd started exchanging closing_signeds".to_owned()));
 		}
 
+		let secret = secp_check!(SecretKey::from_slice(&msg.per_commitment_secret), "Peer provided an invalid per_commitment_secret".to_owned());
+
 		if let Some(counterparty_prev_commitment_point) = self.counterparty_prev_commitment_point {
-			if PublicKey::from_secret_key(&self.secp_ctx, &secp_check!(SecretKey::from_slice(&msg.per_commitment_secret), "Peer provided an invalid per_commitment_secret".to_owned())) != counterparty_prev_commitment_point {
+			if PublicKey::from_secret_key(&self.secp_ctx, &secret) != counterparty_prev_commitment_point {
 				return Err(ChannelError::Close("Got a revoke commitment secret which didn't correspond to their current pubkey".to_owned()));
 			}
 		}
@@ -2761,6 +2771,11 @@ impl<Signer: Sign> Channel<Signer> {
 			*self.next_remote_commitment_tx_fee_info_cached.lock().unwrap() = None;
 		}
 
+		self.holder_signer.validate_counterparty_revocation(
+			self.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1,
+			&secret
+		).map_err(|_| ChannelError::Close("Failed to validate revocation from peer".to_owned()))?;
+
 		self.commitment_secrets.provide_secret(self.cur_counterparty_commitment_transaction_number + 1, msg.per_commitment_secret)
 			.map_err(|_| ChannelError::Close("Previous secrets did not match new one".to_owned()))?;
 		self.latest_monitor_update_id += 1;

lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs

@@ -1301,6 +1301,9 @@ fn test_fee_spike_violation_fails_htlc() {
 		let chan_lock = nodes[0].node.channel_state.lock().unwrap();
 		let local_chan = chan_lock.by_id.get(&chan.2).unwrap();
 		let chan_signer = local_chan.get_signer();
+		// Make the signer believe we validated another commitment, so we can release the secret
+		chan_signer.get_enforcement_state().last_holder_commitment -= 1;
+
 		let pubkeys = chan_signer.pubkeys();
 		(pubkeys.revocation_basepoint, pubkeys.htlc_basepoint,
 		 chan_signer.release_commitment_secret(INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER),
@@ -7981,7 +7984,7 @@ fn test_counterparty_raa_skip_no_crash() {
 	// commitment transaction, we would have happily carried on and provided them the next
 	// commitment transaction based on one RAA forward. This would probably eventually have led to
 	// channel closure, but it would not have resulted in funds loss. Still, our
-	// EnforcingSigner would have paniced as it doesn't like jumps into the future. Here, we
+	// EnforcingSigner would have panicked as it doesn't like jumps into the future. Here, we
 	// check simply that the channel is closed in response to such an RAA, but don't check whether
 	// we decide to punish our counterparty for revoking their funds (as we don't currently
 	// implement that).
@@ -7992,11 +7995,19 @@ fn test_counterparty_raa_skip_no_crash() {
 	let channel_id = create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known()).2;
 
 	let mut guard = nodes[0].node.channel_state.lock().unwrap();
-	let keys = &guard.by_id.get_mut(&channel_id).unwrap().get_signer();
+	let keys = guard.by_id.get_mut(&channel_id).unwrap().get_signer();
+
 	const INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER: u64 = (1 << 48) - 1;
+
+	// Make signer believe we got a counterparty signature, so that it allows the revocation
+	keys.get_enforcement_state().last_holder_commitment -= 1;
 	let per_commitment_secret = keys.release_commitment_secret(INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER);
+
 	// Must revoke without gaps
+	keys.get_enforcement_state().last_holder_commitment -= 1;
 	keys.release_commitment_secret(INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 1);
+
+	keys.get_enforcement_state().last_holder_commitment -= 1;
 	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 		&SecretKey::from_slice(&keys.release_commitment_secret(INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER - 2)).unwrap());
 

lightning/src/ln/msgs.rs

@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ pub struct FundingCreated {
 	pub funding_txid: Txid,
 	/// The specific output index funding this channel
 	pub funding_output_index: u16,
-	/// The signature of the channel initiator (funder) on the funding transaction
+	/// The signature of the channel initiator (funder) on the initial commitment transaction
 	pub signature: Signature,
 }
 
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ pub struct FundingCreated {
 pub struct FundingSigned {
 	/// The channel ID
 	pub channel_id: [u8; 32],
-	/// The signature of the channel acceptor (fundee) on the funding transaction
+	/// The signature of the channel acceptor (fundee) on the initial commitment transaction
 	pub signature: Signature,
 }