Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
bolt: update to 950b2f5481c2a4b57ef1102e2374543e81c4aa88
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
Just a simple field renaming which only alters comments,
though I updated variable names too.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
  • Loading branch information
@rustyrussell @cdecker
rustyrussell authored and cdecker committed Aug 2, 2019
1 parent 2b3003f commit 9b88fd4
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Showing 5 changed files with 61 additions and 61 deletions.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Makefile
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ CCANDIR := ccan

# Where we keep the BOLT RFCs
BOLTDIR := ../lightning-rfc/
BOLTVERSION := ffeece3dab1c52efdb9b53ae476539320fa44938
BOLTVERSION := 950b2f5481c2a4b57ef1102e2374543e81c4aa88

-include config.vars

Expand Down
108 changes: 54 additions & 54 deletions channeld/channeld.c
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1950,7 +1950,7 @@ static void resend_commitment(struct peer *peer, const struct changed_htlc *last

/* BOLT #2:
*
* - if `next_local_commitment_number` is equal to the commitment
* - if `next_commitment_number` is equal to the commitment
* number of the last `commitment_signed` message the receiving node
* has sent:
* - MUST reuse the same commitment number for its next
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2014,22 +2014,22 @@ static void resend_commitment(struct peer *peer, const struct changed_htlc *last
* A receiving node:
* - if it supports `option_data_loss_protect`, AND the
* `option_data_loss_protect` fields are present:
* - if `next_remote_revocation_number` is greater than expected above,
* - if `next_revocation_number` is greater than expected above,
* AND `your_last_per_commitment_secret` is correct for that
* `next_remote_revocation_number` minus 1:
* `next_revocation_number` minus 1:
*/
static void check_future_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
u64 next_remote_revocation_number,
u64 next_revocation_number,
const struct secret *last_local_per_commit_secret,
const struct pubkey *remote_current_per_commitment_point)
{
const u8 *msg;
bool correct;

assert(next_remote_revocation_number > peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);
assert(next_revocation_number > peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);

msg = towire_hsm_check_future_secret(NULL,
next_remote_revocation_number - 1,
next_revocation_number - 1,
last_local_per_commit_secret);
msg = hsm_req(tmpctx, take(msg));
if (!fromwire_hsm_check_future_secret_reply(msg, &correct))
Expand All @@ -2042,13 +2042,13 @@ static void check_future_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad future last_local_per_commit_secret: %"PRIu64
" vs %"PRIu64,
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);

/* Oh shit, they really are from the future! */
peer_billboard(true, "They have future commitment number %"PRIu64
" vs our %"PRIu64". We must wait for them to close!",
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);

/* BOLT #2:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2077,22 +2077,22 @@ static void check_future_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
* - SHOULD fail the channel.
*/
static void check_current_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
u64 next_remote_revocation_number,
u64 next_local_commitment_number,
u64 next_revocation_number,
u64 next_commitment_number,
const struct secret *last_local_per_commit_secret,
const struct pubkey *remote_current_per_commitment_point)
{
struct secret old_commit_secret;

/* By the time we're called, we've ensured this is a valid revocation
* number. */
assert(next_remote_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 2
|| next_remote_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);
assert(next_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 2
|| next_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);

/* By the time we're called, we've ensured we're within 1 of
* their commitment chain */
assert(next_local_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] ||
next_local_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] - 1);
assert(next_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] ||
next_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] - 1);

if (!last_local_per_commit_secret)
return;
Expand All @@ -2102,15 +2102,15 @@ static void check_current_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
* - MUST set `your_last_per_commitment_secret` to all zeroes
*/

status_trace("next_remote_revocation_number = %"PRIu64,
next_remote_revocation_number);
if (next_remote_revocation_number == 0)
status_trace("next_revocation_number = %"PRIu64,
next_revocation_number);
if (next_revocation_number == 0)
memset(&old_commit_secret, 0, sizeof(old_commit_secret));
else {
struct pubkey unused;
/* This gets previous revocation number, since asking for
* commitment point N gives secret for N-2 */
get_per_commitment_point(next_remote_revocation_number+1,
get_per_commitment_point(next_revocation_number+1,
&unused, &old_commit_secret);
}

Expand All @@ -2120,7 +2120,7 @@ static void check_current_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish: your_last_per_commitment_secret %"PRIu64
": %s should be %s",
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct secret,
last_local_per_commit_secret),
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct secret,
Expand All @@ -2129,20 +2129,20 @@ static void check_current_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
status_trace("Reestablish, comparing commitments. Remote's next local commitment number"
" is %"PRIu64". Our next remote is %"PRIu64" with %"PRIu64
" revocations received",
next_local_commitment_number,
next_commitment_number,
peer->next_index[REMOTE],
peer->revocations_received);

/* Either they haven't received our commitment yet, or we're up to date */
if (next_local_commitment_number == peer->revocations_received + 1) {
if (next_commitment_number == peer->revocations_received + 1) {
if (!pubkey_eq(remote_current_per_commitment_point,
&peer->old_remote_per_commit)) {
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish: remote's "
"my_current_per_commitment_point %"PRIu64
"is %s; expected %s (new is %s).",
next_local_commitment_number - 1,
next_commitment_number - 1,
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct pubkey,
remote_current_per_commitment_point),
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct pubkey,
Expand All @@ -2159,7 +2159,7 @@ static void check_current_dataloss_fields(struct peer *peer,
"bad reestablish: remote's "
"my_current_per_commitment_point %"PRIu64
"is %s; expected %s (old is %s).",
next_local_commitment_number - 1,
next_commitment_number - 1,
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct pubkey,
remote_current_per_commitment_point),
type_to_string(tmpctx, struct pubkey,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2194,8 +2194,8 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,
const struct secret *last_remote_per_commit_secret)
{
struct channel_id channel_id;
/* Note: BOLT #2 uses these names, which are sender-relative! */
u64 next_local_commitment_number, next_remote_revocation_number;
/* Note: BOLT #2 uses these names! */
u64 next_commitment_number, next_revocation_number;
bool retransmit_revoke_and_ack, retransmit_commitment_signed;
struct htlc_map_iter it;
const struct htlc *htlc;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2226,9 +2226,9 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,
* message before sending any other messages for that channel.
*
* The sending node:
* - MUST set `next_local_commitment_number` to the commitment number
* - MUST set `next_commitment_number` to the commitment number
* of the next `commitment_signed` it expects to receive.
* - MUST set `next_remote_revocation_number` to the commitment number
* - MUST set `next_revocation_number` to the commitment number
* of the next `revoke_and_ack` message it expects to receive.
* - if it supports `option_data_loss_protect`:
* - if `next_remote_revocation_number` equals 0:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2267,8 +2267,8 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,
if (dataloss_protect) {
if (!fromwire_channel_reestablish_option_data_loss_protect(msg,
&channel_id,
&next_local_commitment_number,
&next_remote_revocation_number,
&next_commitment_number,
&next_revocation_number,
&last_local_per_commitment_secret,
&remote_current_per_commitment_point)) {
peer_failed(peer->pps,
Expand All @@ -2279,8 +2279,8 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,
}
} else {
if (!fromwire_channel_reestablish(msg, &channel_id,
&next_local_commitment_number,
&next_remote_revocation_number)) {
&next_commitment_number,
&next_revocation_number)) {
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish msg: %s %s",
Expand All @@ -2290,20 +2290,20 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,
}

status_trace("Got reestablish commit=%"PRIu64" revoke=%"PRIu64,
next_local_commitment_number,
next_remote_revocation_number);
next_commitment_number,
next_revocation_number);

/* BOLT #2:
*
* - if `next_local_commitment_number` is 1 in both the
* - if `next_commitment_number` is 1 in both the
* `channel_reestablish` it sent and received:
* - MUST retransmit `funding_locked`.
* - otherwise:
* - MUST NOT retransmit `funding_locked`.
*/
if (peer->funding_locked[LOCAL]
&& peer->next_index[LOCAL] == 1
&& next_local_commitment_number == 1) {
&& next_commitment_number == 1) {
u8 *msg;

/* Contains per commit point #1, for first post-opening commit */
Expand All @@ -2319,98 +2319,98 @@ static void peer_reconnect(struct peer *peer,

/* BOLT #2:
*
* - if `next_remote_revocation_number` is equal to the commitment
* - if `next_revocation_number` is equal to the commitment
* number of the last `revoke_and_ack` the receiving node sent, AND
* the receiving node hasn't already received a `closing_signed`:
* - MUST re-send the `revoke_and_ack`.
* - otherwise:
* - if `next_remote_revocation_number` is not equal to 1 greater
* - if `next_revocation_number` is not equal to 1 greater
* than the commitment number of the last `revoke_and_ack` the
* receiving node has sent:
* - SHOULD fail the channel.
* - if it has not sent `revoke_and_ack`, AND
* `next_remote_revocation_number` is not equal to 0:
* `next_revocation_number` is not equal to 0:
* - SHOULD fail the channel.
*/
if (next_remote_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 2) {
if (next_revocation_number == peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 2) {
/* Don't try to retransmit revocation index -1! */
if (peer->next_index[LOCAL] < 2) {
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish revocation_number: %"
PRIu64,
next_remote_revocation_number);
next_revocation_number);
}
retransmit_revoke_and_ack = true;
} else if (next_remote_revocation_number < peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1) {
} else if (next_revocation_number < peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1) {
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish revocation_number: %"PRIu64
" vs %"PRIu64,
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
peer->next_index[LOCAL]);
} else if (next_remote_revocation_number > peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1) {
} else if (next_revocation_number > peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1) {
if (!dataloss_protect)
/* They don't support option_data_loss_protect, we
* fail it due to unexpected number */
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish revocation_number: %"PRIu64
" vs %"PRIu64,
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
peer->next_index[LOCAL] - 1);

/* Remote claims it's ahead of us: can it prove it?
* Does not return. */
check_future_dataloss_fields(peer,
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_revocation_number,
&last_local_per_commitment_secret,
&remote_current_per_commitment_point);
} else
retransmit_revoke_and_ack = false;

/* BOLT #2:
*
* - if `next_local_commitment_number` is equal to the commitment
* - if `next_commitment_number` is equal to the commitment
* number of the last `commitment_signed` message the receiving node
* has sent:
* - MUST reuse the same commitment number for its next
* `commitment_signed`.
*/
if (next_local_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] - 1) {
if (next_commitment_number == peer->next_index[REMOTE] - 1) {
/* We completed opening, we don't re-transmit that one! */
if (next_local_commitment_number == 0)
if (next_commitment_number == 0)
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish commitment_number: %"
PRIu64,
next_local_commitment_number);
next_commitment_number);

retransmit_commitment_signed = true;

/* BOLT #2:
*
* - otherwise:
* - if `next_local_commitment_number` is not 1 greater than the
* - if `next_commitment_number` is not 1 greater than the
* commitment number of the last `commitment_signed` message the
* receiving node has sent:
* - SHOULD fail the channel.
*/
} else if (next_local_commitment_number != peer->next_index[REMOTE])
} else if (next_commitment_number != peer->next_index[REMOTE])
peer_failed(peer->pps,
&peer->channel_id,
"bad reestablish commitment_number: %"PRIu64
" vs %"PRIu64,
next_local_commitment_number,
next_commitment_number,
peer->next_index[REMOTE]);
else
retransmit_commitment_signed = false;

/* After we checked basic sanity, we check dataloss fields if any */
if (dataloss_protect)
check_current_dataloss_fields(peer,
next_remote_revocation_number,
next_local_commitment_number,
next_revocation_number,
next_commitment_number,
&last_local_per_commitment_secret,
&remote_current_per_commitment_point);

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions closingd/closingd.c
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -156,9 +156,9 @@ static void do_reconnect(struct per_peer_state *pps,
* message before sending any other messages for that channel.
*
* The sending node:
* - MUST set `next_local_commitment_number` to the commitment number
* - MUST set `next_commitment_number` to the commitment number
* of the next `commitment_signed` it expects to receive.
* - MUST set `next_remote_revocation_number` to the commitment number
* - MUST set `next_revocation_number` to the commitment number
* of the next `revoke_and_ack` message it expects to receive.
*/

Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions lightningd/peer_control.c
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -357,9 +357,9 @@ void drop_to_chain(struct lightningd *ld, struct channel *channel,
struct bitcoin_txid txid;
/* BOLT #2:
*
* - if `next_remote_revocation_number` is greater than expected
* - if `next_revocation_number` is greater than expected
* above, AND `your_last_per_commitment_secret` is correct for that
* `next_remote_revocation_number` minus 1:
* `next_revocation_number` minus 1:
* - MUST NOT broadcast its commitment transaction.
*/
if (channel->future_per_commitment_point && !cooperative) {
Expand Down
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions wire/extracted_peer_wire_csv
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ msgdata,update_fee,channel_id,channel_id,
msgdata,update_fee,feerate_per_kw,u32,
msgtype,channel_reestablish,136
msgdata,channel_reestablish,channel_id,channel_id,
msgdata,channel_reestablish,next_local_commitment_number,u64,
msgdata,channel_reestablish,next_remote_revocation_number,u64,
msgdata,channel_reestablish,next_commitment_number,u64,
msgdata,channel_reestablish,next_revocation_number,u64,
msgdata,channel_reestablish,your_last_per_commitment_secret,byte,32,option_data_loss_protect
msgdata,channel_reestablish,my_current_per_commitment_point,point,,option_data_loss_protect
msgtype,announcement_signatures,259
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 9b88fd4

Please sign in to comment.