Skip to content

Update channel_reestablish for splicing #3886

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

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz commented Jun 24, 2025

The splicing spec extends the channel_reestablish message with two more TLVs indicating which funding txid the sender has sent/received either explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via channel_ready. This allows peers to detect if a splice_locked was lost during disconnection and must be retransmitted.

To this end, the spec updates the channel_reestablish logic to support splicing.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jun 24, 2025

🎉 This PR is now ready for review!
Please choose at least one reviewer by assigning them on the right bar.
If no reviewers are assigned within 10 minutes, I'll automatically assign one.
Once the first reviewer has submitted a review, a second will be assigned if required.

@jkczyz jkczyz requested a review from wpaulino June 24, 2025 00:12
jkczyz added 2 commits June 24, 2025 15:46
While splicing is not yet fully supported, checking if the feature has
been negotiated is needed for changes to the channel_reestablish logic.
The splicing spec extends the channel_reestablish message with two more
TLVs indicating which funding txid the sender has sent/received either
explicitly via splice_locked or implicitly via channel_ready. This
allows peers to detect if a splice_locked was lost during disconnection
and must be retransmitted. This commit updates channel_reestablish with
the TLVs. Subsequent commits will implement the spec requirements.
@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 1st Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

@jkczyz jkczyz assigned jkczyz and unassigned jkczyz Jun 26, 2025
@jkczyz jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-06-channel-reestablish branch from c079677 to 06c0dfc Compare June 27, 2025 16:44
jkczyz and others added 9 commits June 27, 2025 12:00
The previous commit extended the channel_reestablish message with
your_last_funding_locked_txid and my_current_funding_locked_txid for use
as described there. This commit sets those fields to the funding txid
most recently sent/received accordingly.
When splicing is negotiated, channel_ready must be retransmitted when
your_last_funding_locked is not set. Further, the current logic for
retransmitting channel_ready is only applicable when splicing is not
negotiated.
The splicing spec updates the logic pertaining to next_funding_txid when
handling a channel_reestablish message. Specifically:

A receiving node:
  - if `next_funding_txid` is set:
    - if `next_funding_txid` matches the latest interactive funding transaction
      or the current channel funding transaction:
      - if `next_commitment_number` is equal to the commitment number of the
        `commitment_signed` message it sent for this funding transaction:
        - MUST retransmit its `commitment_signed` for that funding transaction.
      - if it has already received `commitment_signed` and it should sign first,
        as specified in the [`tx_signatures` requirements](#the-tx_signatures-message):
        - MUST send its `tx_signatures` for that funding transaction.
      - if it has already received `tx_signatures` for that funding transaction:
        - MUST send its `tx_signatures` for that funding transaction.
    - if it also sets `next_funding_txid` in its own `channel_reestablish`, but the
      values don't match:
      - MUST send an `error` and fail the channel.
    - otherwise:
      - MUST send `tx_abort` to let the sending node know that they can forget
        this funding transaction.

This commit updates FundedChannel::channel_reestablish accordingly.

Co-authored-by: Wilmer Paulino <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Jeffrey Czyz <[email protected]>
The splicing spec updates the logic pertaining to next_commitment_number
when sending a channel_reestablish message. Specifically:

The sending node:
  - if it has sent `commitment_signed` for an interactive transaction construction but
    it has not received `tx_signatures`:
    - MUST set `next_funding_txid` to the txid of that interactive transaction.
    - if it has not received `commitment_signed` for that interactive transaction:
      - MUST set `next_commitment_number` to the commitment number of the `commitment_signed` it sent.
The channel_reestablish protocol supports retransmitting splice_locked
messages as needed. Add support for doing such when handling
channel_reestablish messages.
The splicing spec updates channel_establishment logic to retransmit
channel_ready or splice_locked for announced channels. Specifically:

- if `my_current_funding_locked` is included:
  - if `announce_channel` is set for this channel:
    - if it has not received `announcement_signatures` for that transaction:
      - MUST retransmit `channel_ready` or `splice_locked` after exchanging `channel_reestablish`.
When a splice transaction is promoted (i.e., when splice_locked has been
exchanged), announcement_signatures must be sent. However, if we try to
send a channel_announcement before they are received, then the
signatures will be incorrect. To avoid this, clear the counterparty's
announcement_signatures upon promoting a FundingScope.
The channel_reestablish protocol supports retransmitting channel_ready
messages as needed. Add support for doing such when handling
channel_reestablish messages.
When handling a counterparties channel_reestablish, the spec dictates
that a splice_locked may be implied by my_current_funding_locked.
Compare that against any pending splices and handle an implicit
splice_locked message when applicable.
@jkczyz jkczyz force-pushed the 2025-06-channel-reestablish branch from 06c0dfc to f000b76 Compare June 27, 2025 17:04
@jkczyz jkczyz marked this pull request as ready for review June 27, 2025 17:12
@jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkczyz commented Jun 27, 2025

@wpaulino Ready for review now.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 27, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 59.22747% with 95 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.42%. Comparing base (0fe51c5) to head (f000b76).
Report is 20 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs 43.82% 85 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 83.33% 1 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3886      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.66%   89.42%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files         164      165       +1     
  Lines      134661   126319    -8342     
  Branches   134661   126319    -8342     
==========================================
- Hits       120743   112967    -7776     
+ Misses      11237    10971     -266     
+ Partials     2681     2381     -300     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

🔔 2nd Reminder

Hey @wpaulino! This PR has been waiting for your review.
Please take a look when you have a chance. If you're unable to review, please let us know so we can find another reviewer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants