Backports for 0.1.3 #3757
Merged
Backports for 0.1.3 #3757
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
This bug was recently surfaced to us by a user who wrote a test where the sender is attempting to route an MPP payment split across the two channels that it has with its LSP, where the LSP has a single large channel to the recipient. Previously this led to a pathfinding failure because our router was not sending the maximum possible value over the first MPP path it found due to overestimating the fees needed to cover the following hops. Because the path that had just been found was not maxxed out, our router assumed that we had already found enough paths to cover the full payment amount and that we were finding additional paths for the purpose of redundant path selection. This caused the router to mark the recipient's only channel as exhausted, with the intention of choosing more unique paths in future iterations. In reality, this ended up with the recipient's only channel being disabled and subsequently failing to find a route entirely. Update the router to fully utilize the capacity of any paths it finds in this situation, preventing the "redundant path selection" behavior from kicking in. Use and `rustfmt` conflicts resolved in: * lightning/src/blinded_path/payment.rs The new test was also updated to avoid APIs not present on 0.1.
When calculating the maximum contribution of a path to a larger route, we want to ensure we don't overshoot as that might cause us to violate a maximum value limit. In 209cb2a, we started by calculating with `ceil`, which can trigger exactly that, so here we drop the extra addition, switching us to `floor`. Found both by the `router` fuzzer as well as the `generate_large_mpp_routes` test.
`String::truncate` takes a byte index but panics if we split in the middle of a UTF-8 codepoint. Sadly, in `InvoiceRequest::fields` we want to tuncate the payer note to a maximum of 512 bytes, which may be in the middle of a UTF-8 codepoint and can cause panic. Here we iterate over the bytes in the string until we find one not in the middle of a UTF-8 codepoint and then split the string there. Trivial `rustfmt` conflicts resolved in: * lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs
In the next commit we attempt to verify `InvoiceRequest`s when fuzzing so that we can test fetching the `InvoiceRequestFields`, but its useful to allow the verification to succeed more often first, which we do here.
This should allow us to reach the panic from two commits ago from the fuzzer.
Ensures `InvoiceReceived` events are not generated multiple times when `manually_handle_bolt12_invoice` is enabled. Duplicate events for the same invoice could cause confusion—this change introduces an idempotency check to prevent that. Conflicts resolved in: * lightning/src/ln/outbound_payment.rs due to the migration upstream from `max_total_routing_fee_msat` to a more general config struct.
|
I've assigned @wpaulino as a reviewer! |
This was referenced Apr 29, 2025
wpaulino
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2025
|
👋 The first review has been submitted! Do you think this PR is ready for a second reviewer? If so, click here to assign a second reviewer. |
|
Should we include b434ec8 to build with our MSRV? |
|
Mmm, yea, good point, done. |
|
✅ Added second reviewer: @jkczyz |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 0.1 #3757 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 88.40% 88.42% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 149 149
Lines 113859 114104 +245
Branches 113859 114104 +245
==========================================
+ Hits 100659 100898 +239
- Misses 10743 10749 +6
Partials 2457 2457 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
jkczyz
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2025
|
Yea, I think its fine to leave that at least for now. |
dunxen
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2025
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.
No description provided.