Don't relay buggy extra payments #2937
Merged
+17
−17
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
If a payer is buggy and tries to pay the same invoice multiple times, it can lead to an edge case where the recipient accepted the first one and purchased liquidity for it, but didn't purchase additional liquidity and thus cannot receive the duplicate payments. In that case, the recipient may even have released the preimage, so the LSP (or any other node in the route) could steal the entire duplicate payment. To prevent that, we immediately fail such buggy duplicate payments. Note that if the first payment was fully completed, we don't fail the extra payments and the payer could get screwed, but they're buggy so it's their problem...
When replaying parts that were waiting for an on-the-fly funding, we explicitly set `commit = false` to all parts but the last one, in order to save us from signing multiple times. But this has side effects in the case where the last part is rejected for some reason, because previous parts stay stuck waiting for a `CMD_SIGN` that never arrives.
remyers
previously approved these changes
Nov 8, 2024
Contributor
remyers
left a comment
remyers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!
The changes appear straight forward wrt the issues described.
eclair-core/src/test/scala/fr/acinq/eclair/payment/relay/OnTheFlyFundingSpec.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
remyers
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2024
sstone
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2024
If a payer is buggy and tries to pay the same invoice multiple times, it can lead to an edge case where the recipient accepted the first one and purchased liquidity for it, but didn't purchase additional liquidity and thus cannot receive the duplicate payments. Also, when replaying parts that were waiting for an on-the-fly funding, we set `commit = false` to all parts, instead of just the last one. This optimization caused the payment to be stuck if the last part was unexpectedly rejected (which would for example happen in the buggy payer case described above, before we rejected those extra payments). --------- Co-authored-by: t-bast <[email protected]>
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.
If a payer is buggy and tries to pay the same invoice multiple times, it can lead to an edge case where the recipient accepted the first one and purchased liquidity for it, but didn't purchase additional liquidity and thus cannot receive the duplicate payments.
Also, when replaying parts that were waiting for an on-the-fly funding, we set
commit = falseto all parts, instead of just the last one. This optimization caused the payment to be stuck if the last part was unexpectedly rejected (which would for example happen in the buggy payer case described above, before we rejected those extra payments).