-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 422
Fix debug panic in full_stack fuzz test
#3602
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
Merged
TheBlueMatt
merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:main
from
jkczyz:2025-02-unset-funding-info
Feb 14, 2025
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Going by the comment,
try_channel_entrywill, when it hits aChannelError::Close, callChannel::force_shutdown, which will create aShutdownResult(ultimately stored asshutdown_finish) with aChannelMonitorUpdate(since!self.channel_state.is_pre_funded_state()) but when we try to apply it we'll fail (as we never added the original monitor).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW I think this was also the case prior to d4bd56f. Wouldn't the monitor update be applied to the original monitor (since we found a duplicate, the original monitor must still be around)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh this actually shouldn't be reachable because the monitor update isn't generated without a
funding_txo, which is unset inunset_funding_infoThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, hmm, maybe the
!self.channel_state.is_pre_funded_statecheck didn't pass then (and doesn't pass now) becauseinitial_commitment_signedproperly only advances the state after checks...so I guess its right, but it certainly is confusing.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is quite annoying that we have the
channel_statewhich can be out of whack with theChannelPhase...can we add an assertion infunding_signedthat thechannel_statematches the phase we decide to go with after we call the innerfunding_signed?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright, pushed a change adding the assertion. Let me know if I misunderstood what you meant.