From weintraub.b at northeastern.edu Tue Dec 13 20:36:02 2022 From: weintraub.b at northeastern.edu (Benjamin Weintraub) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 20:36:02 +0000 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Unclear HTLC scenario In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very helpful, thank you for the quick reply! Ben ________________________________ From: SomberNight Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 10:53 To: Benjamin Weintraub Cc: Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] Unclear HTLC scenario Hi Ben, This is handled earlier than update_fail_htlc: when the recipient sees the update_add_htlc, some sanity checks will fail and it won't commit it to the commitment tx. See here: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Flightning%2Fbolts%2Fblame%2Fa0bbe47b0278b4f152dbaa4f5fab2562413a217c%2F02-peer-protocol.md%23L1036&data=05%7C01%7Cweintraub.b%40northeastern.edu%7C5e9d13700f58406b671208dadd223e31%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C638065437441102846%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6GUyG4x9dxZnhGZpIJY6SQBmA%2FH4%2Bcw8kkD3aQaNZ%2Bk%3D&reserved=0 > 1. type: 128 (`update_add_htlc`) > [...] > A receiving node: > [...] > - receiving an `amount_msat` that the sending node cannot afford at the current `feerate_per_kw` (while maintaining its channel reserve and any `to_local_anchor` and `to_remote_anchor` costs): > - SHOULD send a `warning` and close the connection, or send an `error` and fail the channel. If the recipient decides to simply close the transport connection, the update_add_htlc message is forgotten (due to the rules of how channel_reestablish works), and the channel is back to a usable state. ghost43 ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Weintraub via Lightning-dev wrote: > Hi list, > > > > I have a question about how update_fail_htlcs are handled. Consider this scenario: a node, potentially adversarial, forwards an HTLC along a channel that does not have the funds to support a payment of that size. How does the recipient of the HTLC respond? > > > > I see this line in BOLT #2: > > ?until the corresponding HTLC is irrevocably committed in both sides' commitment transactions: MUST NOT send an `update_fulfill_htlc`, `update_fail_htlc`, or `update_fail_malformed_htlc`" > > > > But this seems confusing to me in the context of the scenario I suggested. Is it saying that even though the channel cannot support the payment, the nodes still need to commit to it? > > > > I assume that this interpretation is not correct, but then when is it okay for a node to send an update_fail_htlc? Immediately upon receiving an invalid transaction? > > > > Any insight you could provide would be great. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: