Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[custom channels 5/5]: merge custom channel staging branch into master #8960

Merged
merged 27 commits into from
Oct 3, 2024

Conversation

guggero
Copy link
Collaborator

@guggero guggero commented Jul 31, 2024

Fixes #8769.

This is the cleaned up code of previous PRs that all went into the 0-19-staging branch and represents all the changes needed to get custom channels into lnd.

Reviewers please read

All commits have been pre-reviewed in previous PRs by at least one person.
We are looking for a second round review, mostly with focus on safety and stability when running with non-custom channels.

The idea is that reviewers get assigned to a certain range of commits within this PR. We decided to not do multiple PRs to keep rebase effort minimal (and so we have all context in a single PR).

The following parts exist (see commit message prefixes marking the start of a part):

Included changes from recent PRs to the 0-19-staging branch

The following PRs HAVE been integrated either into a previous part or this last, 5th part:

Not included PRs to the 0-19-staging branch

The following PRs have NOT yet been integrated into this PR (as they're currently in-flight):

Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jul 31, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are limited to specific labels.

🏷️ Labels to auto review (1)
  • llm-review

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

Pull reviewers stats

Stats of the last 30 days for lnd:

User Total reviews Time to review Total comments
guggero
🥇
14
▀▀
2d 20h 48m
43
▀▀
yyforyongyu
🥈
13
▀▀
1d 13h 22m
22
bhandras
🥉
6
9h 54m
5
Roasbeef
6
6h 49m
9
ProofOfKeags
6
20d 6h 33m
▀▀▀
79
▀▀▀
ellemouton
6
13d 18h 18m
▀▀
46
▀▀
morehouse
4
10d 6h 18m
15
GeorgeTsagk
3
17h 29m
3
bitromortac
2
17d 18h 49m
▀▀
8
carlaKC
2
20h 22m
10
ziggie1984
2
3d 20h 46m
8
Webbdlee74
1
1d 6h 57m
0

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Member

Roasbeef commented Aug 6, 2024

The following parts exist (see commit message prefixes marking the start of a part):

This prefix seems to have been dropped in the latest rebase?

@Roasbeef Roasbeef added the size/giga very large, specialized context, over 10000 lines label Aug 6, 2024
@guggero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

guggero commented Aug 6, 2024

This prefix seems to have been dropped in the latest rebase?

Oops, I haven't actually pushed it yet... It's now up to date and also rebased on top of the first refactor work in the channel state machine.

@guggero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

guggero commented Aug 9, 2024

I addressed some of the TODOs and fixes the unit and integration test failures. Also added release notes that cover all new functionality of this PR.

I added a "Status" section to each part of this PR in the main PR body, will update that whenever status changes.
That means part 1, 3 and 5 are fully ready for review, @ProofOfKeags, @Crypt-iQ, @yyforyongyu.

Copy link
Member

@yyforyongyu yyforyongyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did a quick review on part 5, commits look pretty good. Will do a deep dive, meanwhile let me know if you need help patching unit tests and itest, especially for packages sweep and contractcourt.

lnwallet/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contractcourt/briefcase.go Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/interface.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
input/input.go Show resolved Hide resolved
sweep/tx_input_set.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@ProofOfKeags ProofOfKeags left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok so the biggest thing I want to challenge is the idea that we should use an Option for the tapscript root. IIRC we always have a tapscript root, irrespective of the presence of any aux leaves. We may not have any aux leaves and so I think it makes sense for that to be an option but we can probably save ourselves the effort and just compute the BIP86 root during initialization rather than computing it at the end and having to thread through optional arguments everywhere. The more cases we can eliminate earlier the better, I think. I'm open to some pushback here, though.

Other than that I have some SWE notes intended to simplify some of the interface/implementation code here.

NOTE: my review ONLY covers PART 1

lnwallet/chanfunding/interface.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
go.mod Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
channeldb/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
channeldb/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/chanfunding/canned_assembler.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
chainreg/chainregistry.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
contractcourt/chain_watcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lnwallet/channel.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Roasbeef
Copy link
Member

I pulled in the msg router specific comments from this PR into the original PR adding it: #8520

Ideally we can get this one in quickly, then rebase this over it.

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Member

Roasbeef commented Aug 15, 2024

@ProofOfKeags

Ok so the biggest thing I want to challenge is the idea that we should use an Option for the tapscript root. IIRC we always have a tapscript root, irrespective of the presence of any aux leaves

We don't always have a tapscript root. When we do musig2 today for taproot channels, we don't have that extra tweak, so it's effectively BIP 86. This ensures that the only way the output can be spent is via the musig2 multi-sig with no script path.

Only with the new aux chan added here is the concept of a tapscript root for the funding output relevant.

We may not have any aux leaves and so I think it makes sense for that to be an option but we can probably save ourselves the effort and just compute the BIP86 root during initialization rather than computing it at the end and having to thread through optional arguments everywhere.

FWIW, the BIP 86 root is basically just nil, so we either need root != nil checks everywhere, or we thread through the option as is.

@ProofOfKeags
Copy link
Collaborator

FWIW, the BIP 86 root is basically just nil

Why don't we just compute the BIP86 value and drop it into that structure so that we can unify the types without needing the Option? I'm trying to push for symmetry/uniformity and I think there is natural symmetry here since there is always a value for this. I just think in the nil case you're computing it later?

@guggero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

guggero commented Aug 19, 2024

Why don't we just compute the BIP86 value and drop it into that structure so that we can unify the types without needing the Option? I'm trying to push for symmetry/uniformity and I think there is natural symmetry here since there is always a value for this. I just think in the nil case you're computing it later?

The BIP86 script root is an empty byte slice: https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/blob/master/txscript/taproot.go#L290
We can't put that into a chainhash.Hash, unless we use the all-zero hash. But then we need another distinction somewhere, which IMO is more dangerous.

@guggero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

guggero commented Aug 19, 2024

Rebased after #8520 and addressed some first comments.

@guggero guggero changed the title [custom channels]: merge 0-19-staging branch into master [custom channels]: merge custom channel staging branch into master Aug 20, 2024
Roasbeef and others added 24 commits October 2, 2024 18:09
This will be used by external callers to modify the way we resolve
contracts on chain. For a given contract, we'll store an extra "blob",
that will later be presented during the sweeping phase.
This'll be used to store the extra resolution information for the
commitment outputs.
This way we can re-use it. We also make it slightly more generalized.
In this commit, we refactor all the other constructors for the input to
use MakeBaseInput. We also add a new set of functional options as well.
This'll be useful later on to ensure that new options are properly
applied to all the input types.
We also update breachedOutput w/ the new API.
We convert it to use lnwallet.AddrWithKey, as in the future, knowing the
internal key for an address will be useful.
In this commit, we add a new AuxSweeper interface. This'll take a set of
inputs, and a change addr for the sweep transaction, then optionally
return a new sweep output to be added to the sweep transaction.

We also add a new NotifyBroadcast method.  This'll be used to notify
that we're _about_ to broadcast a sweeping transaction. The set of
inputs is passed in, which allows the caller to prepare for the ultimate
broadcast of the sweeping transaction.

We also add ExtraTxOut to BumpRequest pass fees to NotifyBroadcast. This
allows the callee to know the total fee of the sweeping transaction.
In this commit, we start to use the AuxSweeper (if present) to obtain a
new extra change addr we should add to the sweeping transaction. With
this, we'll take the set of inputs and our change addr, and then maybe
gain a new change addr to add to the sweep transaction.

The extra change addr will be treated as an extra required tx out,
shared across all the relevant inputs. This'll also be used in
NeedWalletInput to make sure that we add an extra input if needed to be
able to pay for the change addr.
This is a hold over until the aux resolution is finalized for HTLC
outputs.
For the upcoming aux sweeper integration, the internal key is needed for
the call backs.
Similar to the sweeper, when we're about to make a new breach
transaction, we ask the sweeper for a new change address, if it has one.
Then when we go to publish, we notify broadcast.
This bit will be false by default in current production deployments.
We also add a sanity check to make sure they can't be signaled without
the aux interfaces.
@Roasbeef
Copy link
Member

Roasbeef commented Oct 3, 2024

Cool think all my comments are addressed - just need to fix the merge conflict to let the CI run.

Ok, fixed the last merge conflict and also an issue in the way I updated MaxFeeRateAllowed. We're green now!

@Roasbeef Roasbeef merged commit 2d33317 into master Oct 3, 2024
30 of 34 checks passed
@guggero guggero deleted the 0-19-staging-rebased branch October 6, 2024 08:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
custom chans size/giga very large, specialized context, over 10000 lines
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

tracking: remaining cleanup to address before merging 0-19-staging branch into master
9 participants