Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. #445
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512
Compare
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4
Compare
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
6991
to
6993
| let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(), | ||
| &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap()); | ||
| let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862
Compare
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine (and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the channel in such a case and move on.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509
Compare
jkczyz
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.