Ensure partial MPP claims continue to blocks channels on restart #3928
+143
−15
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
|
👋 Thanks for assigning @wpaulino as a reviewer! |
|
🔔 1st Reminder Hey @jkczyz! This PR has been waiting for your review. |
In 9cc6e08, we started using the `RAAMonitorUpdateBlockingAction` logic to block RAAs which may remove a preimage from one `ChannelMonitor` if it isn't durably stored in another that is a part of the same MPP claim. At the time, when we claimed a payment, if we saw that the HTLC was already claimed in the channel, we'd simply drop the new RAA blocker. This can happen on reload when replaying MPP claims. However, just because an HTLC is no longer present in `ChannelManager`'s `Channel`, doesn't mean that the `ChannelMonitorUpdate` which stored the preimage actually made it durably into the `ChannelMonitor` on disk. We could begin an MPP payment, have one channel get the preimage durably into its `ChannelMonitor`, then step forward another update with the peer. Then, we could reload, causing the MPP claims to be replayed across all chanels, leading to the RAA blocker(s) being dropped and all channels being unlocked. Finally, if the first channel managed to step forward a further update with its peer before the (now-replayed) `ChannelMonitorUpdate`s for all MPP parts make it to disk we could theoretically lose the preimage. This is, of course, a somewhat comically unlikely scenario, but I had an old note to expand the test and it turned up the issue, so we might as well fix it.
|
Rebased. |
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2024-09-future-async-tests
branch
from
490d6e4 to
6c34c56
Compare
wpaulino
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2025
|
Needs a rebase |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
In 9cc6e08, we started using the
RAAMonitorUpdateBlockingActionlogic to block RAAs which may remove a preimage from oneChannelMonitorif it isn't durably stored in another that is a part of the same MPP claim.At the time, when we claimed a payment, if we saw that the HTLC was already claimed in the channel, we'd simply drop the new RAA blocker. This can happen on reload when replaying MPP claims.
However, just because an HTLC is no longer present in
ChannelManager'sChannel, doesn't mean that theChannelMonitorUpdatewhich stored the preimage actually made it durably into theChannelMonitoron disk.We could begin an MPP payment, have one channel get the preimage durably into its
ChannelMonitor, then step forward another update with the peer. Then, we could reload, causing the MPP claims to be replayed across all chanels, leading to the RAA blocker(s) being dropped and all channels being unlocked. Finally, if the first channel managed to step forward a further update with its peer before the (now-replayed)ChannelMonitorUpdates for all MPP parts make it to disk we could theoretically lose the preimage.This is, of course, a somewhat comically unlikely scenario, but I had an old note to expand the test and it turned up the issue, so we might as well fix it.