Delay removal of fulfilled outbound payments for three timer ticks

Previously, once a fulfilled outbound payment completed and all
associated HTLCs were resolved, we'd immediately remove the payment
entry from the `pending_outbound_payments` map.

Now that we're using the `pending_outbound_payments` map for send
idempotency, this presents a race condition - if the user makes a
redundant `send_payment` call at the same time that the original
payment's last HTLC is resolved, the user would reasonably expect
the `send_payment` call to fail due to our idempotency guarantees.

However, because the `pending_outbound_payments` entry is being
removed, if it completes first the `send_payment` call will
succeed even though the user has not had a chance to see the
corresponding `Event::PaymentSent`.

Instead, here, we delay removal of `Fulfilled`
`pending_outbound_payments` entries until several timer ticks have
passed without any corresponding event or HTLC pending.

Author: TheBlueMatt

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs

@@ -473,6 +473,7 @@ pub(crate) enum PendingOutboundPayment {
 	Fulfilled {
 		session_privs: HashSet<[u8; 32]>,
 		payment_hash: Option<PaymentHash>,
+		timer_ticks_without_htlcs: u8,
 	},
 	/// When a payer gives up trying to retry a payment, they inform us, letting us generate a
 	/// `PaymentFailed` event when all HTLCs have irrevocably failed. This avoids a number of race
@@ -532,7 +533,7 @@ impl PendingOutboundPayment {
 				=> session_privs,
 		});
 		let payment_hash = self.payment_hash();
-		*self = PendingOutboundPayment::Fulfilled { session_privs, payment_hash };
+		*self = PendingOutboundPayment::Fulfilled { session_privs, payment_hash, timer_ticks_without_htlcs: 0 };
 	}
 
 	fn mark_abandoned(&mut self) -> Result<(), ()> {
@@ -3601,6 +3602,44 @@ impl<Signer: Sign, M: Deref, T: Deref, K: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref> ChannelMana
 		});
 	}
 
+	fn timeout_resolved_payments(&self) {
+		// If an outbound payment was completed, and no pending HTLCs remain, we should remove it
+		// from the map. However, if we did that immediately when the payment completes, this could
+		// race the user sending a duplicate payment (and relying on our idempotency guarantees on
+		// send_payment to avoid actually sending). Instead, we wait two timer ticks to do the
+		// actual removal. This should be more than sufficient to ensure and `send_payment` calls
+		// which were made at the same time the `PaymentSent` event was being processed complete.
+		let mut pending_outbound_payments = self.pending_outbound_payments.lock().unwrap();
+		let pending_events = self.pending_events.lock().unwrap();
+		pending_outbound_payments.retain(|payment_id, payment| {
+			if let PendingOutboundPayment::Fulfilled { session_privs, timer_ticks_without_htlcs, .. } = payment {
+				let mut no_remaining_entries = session_privs.is_empty();
+				if no_remaining_entries {
+					for ev in pending_events.iter() {
+						match ev {
+							events::Event::PaymentSent { payment_id: Some(ev_payment_id), .. }|
+							events::Event::PaymentPathSuccessful { payment_id: ev_payment_id, .. }|
+							events::Event::PaymentPathFailed { payment_id: Some(ev_payment_id), .. } => {
+								if payment_id == ev_payment_id {
+									no_remaining_entries = false;
+									break;
+								}
+							},
+							_ => {},
+						}
+					}
+				}
+				if no_remaining_entries {
+					*timer_ticks_without_htlcs += 1;
+					*timer_ticks_without_htlcs <= 3
+				} else {
+					*timer_ticks_without_htlcs = 0;
+					true
+				}
+			} else { true }
+		});
+	}
+
 	/// Performs actions which should happen on startup and roughly once per minute thereafter.
 	///
 	/// This currently includes:
@@ -3704,6 +3743,9 @@ impl<Signer: Sign, M: Deref, T: Deref, K: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref> ChannelMana
 			for (err, counterparty_node_id) in handle_errors.drain(..) {
 				let _ = handle_error!(self, err, counterparty_node_id);
 			}
+
+			self.timeout_resolved_payments();
+
 			should_persist
 		});
 	}
@@ -4221,9 +4263,6 @@ impl<Signer: Sign, M: Deref, T: Deref, K: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref> ChannelMana
 							}
 						);
 					}
-					if payment.get().remaining_parts() == 0 {
-						payment.remove();
-					}
 				}
 			}
 		}
@@ -4269,10 +4308,6 @@ impl<Signer: Sign, M: Deref, T: Deref, K: Deref, F: Deref, L: Deref> ChannelMana
 								}
 							);
 						}
-
-						if payment.get().remaining_parts() == 0 {
-							payment.remove();
-						}
 					}
 				} else {
 					log_trace!(self.logger, "Received duplicative fulfill for HTLC with payment_preimage {}", log_bytes!(payment_preimage.0));
@@ -6597,6 +6632,7 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based_enum_upgradable!(PendingOutboundPayment,
 	(1, Fulfilled) => {
 		(0, session_privs, required),
 		(1, payment_hash, option),
+		(3, timer_ticks_without_htlcs, (default_value, 0)),
 	},
 	(2, Retryable) => {
 		(0, session_privs, required),

lightning/src/ln/payment_tests.rs

@@ -1255,3 +1255,74 @@ fn onchain_failed_probe_yields_event() {
 	}
 	assert!(found_probe_failed);
 }
+
+#[test]
+fn claimed_send_payment_idempotent() {
+	// Tests that `send_payment` (and friends) are (reasonably) idempotent.
+	let chanmon_cfgs = create_chanmon_cfgs(2);
+	let node_cfgs = create_node_cfgs(2, &chanmon_cfgs);
+	let node_chanmgrs = create_node_chanmgrs(2, &node_cfgs, &[None, None]);
+	let nodes = create_network(2, &node_cfgs, &node_chanmgrs);
+
+	create_announced_chan_between_nodes(&nodes, 0, 1, channelmanager::provided_init_features(), channelmanager::provided_init_features()).2;
+
+	let (route, second_payment_hash, second_payment_preimage, second_payment_secret) = get_route_and_payment_hash!(nodes[0], nodes[1], 100_000);
+	let (first_payment_preimage, _, _, payment_id) = send_along_route(&nodes[0], route.clone(), &[&nodes[1]], 100_000);
+
+	macro_rules! check_send_rejected {
+		() => {
+			// If we try to resend a new payment with a different payment_hash but with the same
+			// payment_id, it should be rejected.
+			let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id);
+			match send_result {
+				Err(PaymentSendFailure::ParameterError(APIError::RouteError { err: "Payment already in progress" })) => {},
+				_ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+			}
+
+			// Further, if we try to send a spontaneous payment with the same payment_id it should
+			// also be rejected.
+			let send_result = nodes[0].node.send_spontaneous_payment(&route, None, payment_id);
+			match send_result {
+				Err(PaymentSendFailure::ParameterError(APIError::RouteError { err: "Payment already in progress" })) => {},
+				_ => panic!("Unexpected send result: {:?}", send_result),
+			}
+		}
+	}
+
+	check_send_rejected!();
+
+	// Claim the payment backwards, but note that the PaymentSent event is still pending and has
+	// not been seen by the user. At this point, from the user perspective nothing has changed, so
+	// we must remain just as idempotent as we were before.
+	do_claim_payment_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], false, first_payment_preimage);
+
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+
+	check_send_rejected!();
+
+	// Once the user sees and handles the `PaymentSent` event, we expect them to no longer call
+	// `send_payment`, and our idempotency guarantees are off - they should have atomically marked
+	// the payment complete. However, they could have called `send_payment` while the event was
+	// being processed, leading to a race in our idempotency guarantees. Thus, even immediately
+	// after the event is handled a duplicate payment should sitll be rejected.
+	expect_payment_sent!(&nodes[0], first_payment_preimage, Some(0));
+	check_send_rejected!();
+
+	// However, after some time has passed (at least more than one timer tick), a duplicate payment
+	// should go through, as ChannelManager should no longer have any remaining references to the
+	// old payment data.
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	check_send_rejected!();
+
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+	nodes[0].node.timer_tick_occurred();
+
+	nodes[0].node.send_payment(&route, second_payment_hash, &Some(second_payment_secret), payment_id).unwrap();
+	check_added_monitors!(nodes[0], 1);
+	pass_along_route(&nodes[0], &[&[&nodes[1]]], 100_000, second_payment_hash, second_payment_secret);
+	claim_payment(&nodes[0], &[&nodes[1]], second_payment_preimage);
+}