Require static_remotekey #539

TheBlueMatt · 2020-03-09T20:04:25Z

Based on #441 (tough I could maybe drop that), #472, and #537, this adds support for, requires, and drops code for pre-static_remotekey channels. Since this is gonna be required for simplified_commitment (which we're gonna want for 0.1 so that we don't have to rely on fee prediction) I don't see a reason to support non-static_remotekey channels.

[ ] I need to PR the changes to the test chases for channel transaction unit tests upstream to compare with other implementations.

TheBlueMatt · 2020-03-19T03:54:03Z

CC lightning/bolts#758

ariard

Far simpler than expected, would have my vote to go after ChanMonitor refactoring patchset

ariard · 2020-03-30T22:12:39Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmonitor.rs

-	// Thanks to data loss protection, we may be able to claim our non-htlc funds
-	// back, this is the script we have to spend from but we need to
-	// scan every commitment transaction for that
-	to_remote_rescue: Option<(Script, SecretKey)>,


Note: I'm already cutting out a lot of code based on to_remote_output after the #562 patchset, so rebasing this on top should even simplify change further.

TheBlueMatt · 2020-04-28T00:26:14Z

Rebased on #590 (which was rebased on master).

codecov · 2020-04-28T00:33:38Z

Codecov Report

Merging #539 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 92.15%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #539      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.12%   91.13%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines       20544    20504      -40     
==========================================
- Hits        18720    18686      -34     
+ Misses       1824     1818       -6

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs	`86.60% <ø> (+0.18%)`	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs	`85.49% <0.00%> (+0.03%)`	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/peer_handler.rs	`58.25% <60.00%> (-0.05%)`	⬇️
lightning/src/chain/keysinterface.rs	`96.98% <100.00%> (ø)`
lightning/src/ln/chan_utils.rs	`97.17% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
lightning/src/ln/channelmonitor.rs	`95.52% <100.00%> (+0.01%)`	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/features.rs	`98.71% <100.00%> (+0.05%)`	⬆️
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs	`97.02% <100.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️
lightning/src/ln/msgs.rs	`90.14% <100.00%> (ø)`
lightning/src/util/enforcing_trait_impls.rs	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
... and 3 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 9098240...07db23d. Read the comment docs.

This makes it easier to amend the full_stack_target test_no_existing_test_breakage test by always providing the neccessary data in the log.

It appears the local signatures which are specified in the channel transaction-generation tests were never checked directly (though they were checked as a part of the overall fully-signed-transaction tests). Check them explicitly so that they can be updated for static remote key.

TheBlueMatt · 2020-04-29T19:27:05Z

Rebased on master directly now and updated the fuzz tests for the new tx format.

lightning/src/ln/features.rs

jkczyz · 2020-05-01T16:13:15Z

lightning/src/ln/features.rs

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ mod sealed {
 			// Byte 0
 			DataLossProtect | InitialRoutingSync | UpfrontShutdownScript,
 			// Byte 1
-			VariableLengthOnion | PaymentSecret,
+			VariableLengthOnion | StaticRemoteKey | PaymentSecret,


Please update commit message as anything listed here is considered known as of #590.

Nah, thats a code bug, not a commit message bug :p.

jkczyz · 2020-05-02T00:03:26Z

lightning/src/ln/channelmonitor.rs

-				5u8.write(w)?;
+				4u8.write(w)?;


I assume there is no concern yet that this changes the serialization format. At what point will we need to be mindful about this?

I don't think so yet, no, but its probably something worth discussing. My answer was always "0.1", ie "once we actually think its reasonable to start testing on mainnet", but that's probably now "once we support anchor outputs, or at least the insecure-HTLCs version that it looks like we'll get first".

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

jkczyz · 2020-05-02T00:53:09Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

@@ -3467,18 +3456,20 @@ impl<ChanSigner: ChannelKeys> Channel<ChanSigner> {
 	pub fn get_channel_reestablish(&self) -> msgs::ChannelReestablish {
 		assert_eq!(self.channel_state & ChannelState::PeerDisconnected as u32, ChannelState::PeerDisconnected as u32);
 		assert_ne!(self.cur_remote_commitment_transaction_number, INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER);
+		let mut pk = [2; 33]; pk[1] = 0xff; // Select a dummy pubkey which is valid in both "real" and fuzztarget modes


Not sure I follow what is meant by this comment. If it's valid in "real" mode why wouldn't it also be valid in fuzztarget mode?

I updated the comment to be more verbose, but essentially fuzztarget mode has an arbitrary validity criteria, which we want to match, as well as actually being valid.

lightning/src/ln/chan_utils.rs

lightning/src/chain/keysinterface.rs

ariard

Few docs points, but otherwise ACK. I can take the TODO if this get first.

lightning/src/ln/chan_utils.rs

lightning/src/chain/keysinterface.rs

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

ariard · 2020-05-04T07:35:21Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

-						return Err(ChannelError::CloseDelayBroadcast {
-							msg: "We have fallen behind - we have received proof that if we broadcast remote is going to claim our funds - we can't do any automated broadcasting",
-							update: monitor_update
-						});


Doesn't matter anymore now but did we forget to implement "my_current_per_commitment_point" does not match the expected value"? I'm not even sure you can verify this given you don't have a comparison base if you're fallen behind.

Hmm, yea, seems so. One of those awkward "checking this has no value except to enforce that people don't generally set it wrong".........

ariard · 2020-05-04T07:41:22Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+						self.their_pubkeys.as_ref().unwrap().payment_basepoint
+					} else {
+						self.local_keys.pubkeys().payment_basepoint
+					}.serialize());


indentation?

No? Its indented because its a parameter to a fn.

My earlier comment was rather to make the expression inside WPubkeyHash::hash() (i.e. the payment basepoint) a local variable, which would be more readable IMHO.

Ah, ok. Missed that. Also responded too quick to antoine's comment, the whole thing did have an extra indent, I'd intended that for these lines but not the top "let" line. Fixed.

jkczyz

One small comment but otherwise looks good!

jkczyz · 2020-05-05T00:25:24Z

lightning/src/ln/channel.rs

+						self.their_pubkeys.as_ref().unwrap().payment_basepoint
+					} else {
+						self.local_keys.pubkeys().payment_basepoint
+					}.serialize());


My earlier comment was rather to make the expression inside WPubkeyHash::hash() (i.e. the payment basepoint) a local variable, which would be more readable IMHO.

This adds the ability to check for static_remotekey in appropriate feature contexts and prints it at connect time. It is still considered unknown for the purposes of requires_unknown_bits() as we don't yet implement it.

This simplifies channelmonitor quite nicely (as expected) as we never have to be concerned with learning data in a DataLossProtect which is require for us to claim our funds from the latest remote commitment transaction.

We no longer derive any keys from the payment point, so they aren't a "base" but simply a point/key.

TheBlueMatt · 2020-05-06T01:43:47Z

Fixes issues and squashed. Will confer with @ariard on ordering with #610 and then merge.

ariard · 2020-05-06T01:48:56Z

ACK 07db23d, just fixing my nit comments + Jeff one since last review.

TheBlueMatt added this to the 0.1 milestone Mar 9, 2020

ariard reviewed Mar 30, 2020

View reviewed changes

ariard added the Moderate Review Difficulty label Apr 27, 2020

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from 961f225 to 524c324 Compare April 28, 2020 00:25

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from 524c324 to acdd6d8 Compare April 29, 2020 01:01

jkczyz self-requested a review April 29, 2020 18:17

TheBlueMatt added 2 commits April 29, 2020 14:50

Add additional trace logging in channel signature validation

3fb482a

This makes it easier to amend the full_stack_target test_no_existing_test_breakage test by always providing the neccessary data in the log.

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from acdd6d8 to b007a68 Compare April 29, 2020 19:26

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from b007a68 to 0e42876 Compare April 29, 2020 20:10

valentinewallace self-requested a review April 29, 2020 20:52

jkczyz reviewed May 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from 0e42876 to a37cd6d Compare May 3, 2020 02:14

ariard reviewed May 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

ariard added the High Review Priority label May 4, 2020

ariard reviewed May 4, 2020

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from a37cd6d to e1e3090 Compare May 4, 2020 17:58

jkczyz reviewed May 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

TheBlueMatt added 3 commits May 5, 2020 21:40

Add detection of feature_static_remotekey support and print

22dded7

This adds the ability to check for static_remotekey in appropriate feature contexts and prints it at connect time. It is still considered unknown for the purposes of requires_unknown_bits() as we don't yet implement it.

Require option_static_remotekey in channel/channelmonitor.

babf0af

This simplifies channelmonitor quite nicely (as expected) as we never have to be concerned with learning data in a DataLossProtect which is require for us to claim our funds from the latest remote commitment transaction.

Rename payment_basepoint/key to simply payment_point/key.

07db23d

We no longer derive any keys from the payment point, so they aren't a "base" but simply a point/key.

TheBlueMatt force-pushed the 2020-03-static-remotekey branch from e1e3090 to 07db23d Compare May 6, 2020 01:43

TheBlueMatt merged commit d2520f4 into lightningdevkit:master May 6, 2020

TheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Aug 23, 2020

Make message fields public #665

Merged

TheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Feb 4, 2021

Implement option_static_key #372

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Require static_remotekey #539

Require static_remotekey #539

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 9, 2020

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 19, 2020

ariard left a comment

ariard Mar 30, 2020

TheBlueMatt commented Apr 28, 2020

codecov bot commented Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

TheBlueMatt commented Apr 29, 2020

jkczyz May 1, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 3, 2020

jkczyz May 2, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 3, 2020

jkczyz May 2, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 3, 2020

ariard left a comment

ariard May 4, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 4, 2020

ariard May 4, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 4, 2020

jkczyz May 5, 2020

TheBlueMatt May 6, 2020

jkczyz left a comment

jkczyz May 5, 2020

TheBlueMatt commented May 6, 2020

ariard commented May 6, 2020

Require static_remotekey #539

Require static_remotekey #539

Conversation

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 9, 2020

TheBlueMatt commented Mar 19, 2020

ariard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TheBlueMatt commented Apr 28, 2020

codecov bot commented Apr 28, 2020 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

TheBlueMatt commented Apr 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ariard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jkczyz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

TheBlueMatt commented May 6, 2020

ariard commented May 6, 2020

codecov bot commented Apr 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading