@@ -9457,12 +9457,7 @@ fn test_forwardable_regen() {
94579457 claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1], &nodes[2]], payment_preimage_2);
94589458}
94599459
9460- #[ test]
9461- fn test_dup_htlc_second_fail_panic ( ) {
9462- // Previously, if we received two HTLCs back-to-back, where the second overran the expected
9463- // value for the payment, we'd fail back both HTLCs after generating a `PaymentReceived` event.
9464- // Then, if the user failed the second payment, they'd hit a "tried to fail an already failed
9465- // HTLC" debug panic. This tests for this behavior, checking that only one HTLC is auto-failed.
9460+ fn do_test_dup_htlc_second_rejected(test_for_second_fail_panic: bool) {
94669461 let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
94679462 let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
94689463 let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None]);
@@ -9472,14 +9467,9 @@ fn test_dup_htlc_second_fail_panic() {
94729467
94739468 let payment_params = PaymentParameters::from_node_id(nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id())
94749469 .with_features(InvoiceFeatures::known());
9475- let scorer = test_utils:: TestScorer :: with_penalty ( 0 ) ;
9476- let random_seed_bytes = chanmon_cfgs[ 1 ] . keys_manager . get_secure_random_bytes ( ) ;
9477- let route = get_route (
9478- & nodes[ 0 ] . node . get_our_node_id ( ) , & payment_params, & nodes[ 0 ] . network_graph . read_only ( ) ,
9479- Some ( & nodes[ 0 ] . node . list_usable_channels ( ) . iter ( ) . collect :: < Vec < _ > > ( ) ) ,
9480- 10_000 , TEST_FINAL_CLTV , nodes[ 0 ] . logger , & scorer, & random_seed_bytes) . unwrap ( ) ;
9470+ let route = get_route!(nodes[0], payment_params, 10_000, TEST_FINAL_CLTV).unwrap();
94819471
9482- let ( _ , our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret) = get_payment_preimage_hash ! ( & nodes[ 1 ] ) ;
9472+ let (our_payment_preimage , our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret) = get_payment_preimage_hash!(&nodes[1]);
94839473
94849474 {
94859475 nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, our_payment_hash, &Some(our_payment_secret)).unwrap();
@@ -9507,26 +9497,153 @@ fn test_dup_htlc_second_fail_panic() {
95079497 // the first HTLC delivered above.
95089498 }
95099499
9510- // Now we go fail back the first HTLC from the user end.
95119500 expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore!(nodes[1]);
95129501 nodes[1].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();
9513- nodes[ 1 ] . node . fail_htlc_backwards ( & our_payment_hash) ;
95149502
9515- expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore ! ( nodes[ 1 ] ) ;
9516- nodes[ 1 ] . node . process_pending_htlc_forwards ( ) ;
9503+ if test_for_second_fail_panic {
9504+ // Now we go fail back the first HTLC from the user end.
9505+ nodes[1].node.fail_htlc_backwards(&our_payment_hash);
95179506
9518- check_added_monitors ! ( nodes[ 1 ] , 1 ) ;
9519- let fail_updates_1 = get_htlc_update_msgs ! ( nodes[ 1 ] , nodes[ 0 ] . node. get_our_node_id( ) ) ;
9520- assert_eq ! ( fail_updates_1. update_fail_htlcs. len( ) , 2 ) ;
9507+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore!(nodes[1]);
9508+ nodes[1].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();
9509+
9510+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
9511+ let fail_updates_1 = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
9512+ assert_eq!(fail_updates_1.update_fail_htlcs.len(), 2);
9513+
9514+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fail_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &fail_updates_1.update_fail_htlcs[0]);
9515+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fail_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &fail_updates_1.update_fail_htlcs[1]);
9516+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[0], nodes[1], fail_updates_1.commitment_signed, false);
9517+
9518+ let failure_events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_events();
9519+ assert_eq!(failure_events.len(), 2);
9520+ if let Event::PaymentPathFailed { .. } = failure_events[0] {} else { panic!(); }
9521+ if let Event::PaymentPathFailed { .. } = failure_events[1] {} else { panic!(); }
9522+ } else {
9523+ // Let the second HTLC fail and claim the first
9524+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore!(nodes[1]);
9525+ nodes[1].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();
9526+
9527+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[1], 1);
9528+ let fail_updates_1 = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[1], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
9529+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fail_htlc(&nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id(), &fail_updates_1.update_fail_htlcs[0]);
9530+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[0], nodes[1], fail_updates_1.commitment_signed, false);
9531+
9532+ expect_payment_failed_conditions!(nodes[0], our_payment_hash, true, PaymentFailedConditions::new().mpp_parts_remain());
9533+
9534+ claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], our_payment_preimage);
9535+ }
9536+ }
9537+
9538+ #[test]
9539+ fn test_dup_htlc_second_fail_panic() {
9540+ // Previously, if we received two HTLCs back-to-back, where the second overran the expected
9541+ // value for the payment, we'd fail back both HTLCs after generating a `PaymentReceived` event.
9542+ // Then, if the user failed the second payment, they'd hit a "tried to fail an already failed
9543+ // HTLC" debug panic. This tests for this behavior, checking that only one HTLC is auto-failed.
9544+ do_test_dup_htlc_second_rejected(true);
9545+ }
9546+
9547+ #[test]
9548+ fn test_dup_htlc_second_rejected() {
9549+ // Test that if we receive a second HTLC for an MPP payment that overruns the payment amount we
9550+ // simply reject the second HTLC but are still able to claim the first HTLC.
9551+ do_test_dup_htlc_second_rejected(false);
9552+ }
9553+
9554+ #[test]
9555+ fn test_inconsistent_mpp_params() {
9556+ // Test that if we recieve two HTLCs with different payment parameters we fail back the first
9557+ // such HTLC and allow the second to stay.
9558+ let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(4);
9559+ let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(4, &chanmon_cfgs);
9560+ let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(4, &node_cfgs, &[None, None, None, None]);
9561+ let nodes = create_network(4, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
9562+
9563+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 0, 1, 100_000, 0, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
9564+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 0, 2, 100_000, 0, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
9565+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 1, 3, 100_000, 0, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
9566+ create_announced_chan_between_nodes_with_value(&nodes, 2, 3, 100_000, 0, InitFeatures::known(), InitFeatures::known());
9567+
9568+ let payment_params = PaymentParameters::from_node_id(nodes[3].node.get_our_node_id())
9569+ .with_features(InvoiceFeatures::known());
9570+ let mut route = get_route!(nodes[0], payment_params, 15_000_000, TEST_FINAL_CLTV).unwrap();
9571+ assert_eq!(route.paths.len(), 2);
9572+ route.paths.sort_by(|path_a, _| {
9573+ // Sort the path so that the path through nodes[1] comes first
9574+ if path_a[0].pubkey == nodes[1].node.get_our_node_id() {
9575+ core::cmp::Ordering::Less } else { core::cmp::Ordering::Greater }
9576+ });
9577+ let payment_params_opt = Some(payment_params);
9578+
9579+ let (our_payment_preimage, our_payment_hash, our_payment_secret) = get_payment_preimage_hash!(&nodes[3]);
9580+
9581+ let cur_height = nodes[0].best_block_info().1;
9582+ let payment_id = PaymentId([42; 32]);
9583+ {
9584+ nodes[0].node.send_payment_along_path(&route.paths[0], &payment_params_opt, &our_payment_hash, &Some(our_payment_secret), 15_000_000, cur_height, payment_id, &None).unwrap();
9585+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
9586+
9587+ let mut events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
9588+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
9589+ pass_along_path(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1], &nodes[3]], 15_000_000, our_payment_hash, Some(our_payment_secret), events.pop().unwrap(), false, None);
9590+ }
9591+ assert!(nodes[3].node.get_and_clear_pending_events().is_empty());
9592+
9593+ {
9594+ nodes[0].node.send_payment_along_path(&route.paths[1], &payment_params_opt, &our_payment_hash, &Some(our_payment_secret), 14_000_000, cur_height, payment_id, &None).unwrap();
9595+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
9596+
9597+ let mut events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
9598+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
9599+ let payment_event = SendEvent::from_event(events.pop().unwrap());
9600+
9601+ nodes[2].node.handle_update_add_htlc(&nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id(), &payment_event.msgs[0]);
9602+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[2], nodes[0], payment_event.commitment_msg, false);
95219603
9522- nodes[ 0 ] . node . handle_update_fail_htlc ( & nodes[ 1 ] . node . get_our_node_id ( ) , & fail_updates_1. update_fail_htlcs [ 0 ] ) ;
9523- nodes[ 0 ] . node . handle_update_fail_htlc ( & nodes[ 1 ] . node . get_our_node_id ( ) , & fail_updates_1. update_fail_htlcs [ 1 ] ) ;
9524- commitment_signed_dance ! ( nodes[ 0 ] , nodes[ 1 ] , fail_updates_1. commitment_signed, false ) ;
9604+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[2]);
9605+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[2], 1);
9606+
9607+ let mut events = nodes[2].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
9608+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
9609+ let payment_event = SendEvent::from_event(events.pop().unwrap());
9610+
9611+ nodes[3].node.handle_update_add_htlc(&nodes[2].node.get_our_node_id(), &payment_event.msgs[0]);
9612+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[3], 0);
9613+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[3], nodes[2], payment_event.commitment_msg, true, true);
9614+
9615+ // At this point, nodes[3] should notice the two HTLCs don't contain the same total payment
9616+ // amount. It will assume the second is a privacy attack (no longer particularly relevant
9617+ // post-payment_secrets) and fail back the new HTLC.
9618+ }
9619+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore!(nodes[3]);
9620+ nodes[3].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();
9621+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable_ignore!(nodes[3]);
9622+ nodes[3].node.process_pending_htlc_forwards();
9623+
9624+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[3], 1);
9625+
9626+ let fail_updates_1 = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[3], nodes[2].node.get_our_node_id());
9627+ nodes[2].node.handle_update_fail_htlc(&nodes[3].node.get_our_node_id(), &fail_updates_1.update_fail_htlcs[0]);
9628+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[2], nodes[3], fail_updates_1.commitment_signed, false);
9629+
9630+ expect_pending_htlcs_forwardable!(nodes[2]);
9631+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[2], 1);
9632+
9633+ let fail_updates_2 = get_htlc_update_msgs!(nodes[2], nodes[0].node.get_our_node_id());
9634+ nodes[0].node.handle_update_fail_htlc(&nodes[2].node.get_our_node_id(), &fail_updates_2.update_fail_htlcs[0]);
9635+ commitment_signed_dance!(nodes[0], nodes[2], fail_updates_2.commitment_signed, false);
9636+
9637+ expect_payment_failed_conditions!(nodes[0], our_payment_hash, true, PaymentFailedConditions::new().mpp_parts_remain());
9638+
9639+ nodes[0].node.send_payment_along_path(&route.paths[1], &payment_params_opt, &our_payment_hash, &Some(our_payment_secret), 15_000_000, cur_height, payment_id, &None).unwrap();
9640+ check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
9641+
9642+ let mut events = nodes[0].node.get_and_clear_pending_msg_events();
9643+ assert_eq!(events.len(), 1);
9644+ pass_along_path(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[2], &nodes[3]], 15_000_000, our_payment_hash, Some(our_payment_secret), events.pop().unwrap(), true, None);
95259645
9526- let failure_events = nodes[ 0 ] . node . get_and_clear_pending_events ( ) ;
9527- assert_eq ! ( failure_events. len( ) , 2 ) ;
9528- if let Event :: PaymentPathFailed { .. } = failure_events[ 0 ] { } else { panic ! ( ) ; }
9529- if let Event :: PaymentPathFailed { .. } = failure_events[ 1 ] { } else { panic ! ( ) ; }
9646+ claim_payment_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1], &nodes[3]], &[&nodes[2], &nodes[3]]], false, our_payment_preimage);
95309647}
95319648
95329649#[test]
0 commit comments