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

Use a single peer state map for all channel phases in peer state #2495

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Sep 9, 2023

Conversation

dunxen
Copy link
Contributor

@dunxen dunxen commented Aug 14, 2023

Fixes #2422

Will unblock progress on #2302.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 14, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 83.80% and project coverage change: -0.15% ⚠️

Comparison is base (44b9c54) 90.63% compared to head (9a1692e) 90.48%.
Report is 21 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 9a1692e differs from pull request most recent head 88db0b8. Consider uploading reports for the commit 88db0b8 to get more accurate results

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2495      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.63%   90.48%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files         110      112       +2     
  Lines       58199    58429     +230     
  Branches    58199    58429     +230     
==========================================
+ Hits        52747    52870     +123     
- Misses       5452     5559     +107     
Files Changed Coverage Δ
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 86.71% <ø> (-0.44%) ⬇️
lightning/src/util/test_utils.rs 68.70% <0.00%> (-4.91%) ⬇️
lightning/src/ln/functional_test_utils.rs 88.91% <33.33%> (-0.29%) ⬇️
lightning-persister/src/utils.rs 71.42% <71.42%> (ø)
lightning/src/util/persist.rs 84.78% <80.55%> (-15.22%) ⬇️
lightning-background-processor/src/lib.rs 81.41% <82.05%> (-0.91%) ⬇️
lightning-persister/src/fs_store.rs 87.71% <87.71%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/msgs.rs 86.20% <89.77%> (ø)
lightning/src/ln/chanmon_update_fail_tests.rs 98.67% <90.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
lightning/src/util/message_signing.rs 92.30% <90.47%> (ø)
... and 8 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

Was nice while it lasted, but, yea, I think this makes sense 😢

@dunxen
Copy link
Contributor Author

dunxen commented Aug 15, 2023

Was nice while it lasted, but, yea, I think this makes sense 😢

Yeah, there were some benefits to the multi-map approach, but I believe there's just too many negatives and harder to consolidate. The one con to single map is that there is added verbosity in places but I think we can impl helper methods on a newtype for the map to make things more readable and dedup stuff.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

#2428 landed 🎉

@dunxen dunxen marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2023 07:46
Copy link
Contributor

@vladimirfomene vladimirfomene left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a few questions

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@alecchendev alecchendev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Got maybe ~half way through

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Contributor

@alecchendev alecchendev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Mainly was trying to look at where we match every variant vs. _ (or do an if let) since one of the nice things with this PR is to have the compiler notify us of important places when adding new ChannelPhases, and these places seem to be good (or at least lean towards being stricter) AFAICT, might have to think on these more though. Otherwise, mainly just some smaller style comments and whatnot

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines +5867 to +5919
hash_map::Entry::Occupied(mut chan_phase_entry) => {
if let ChannelPhase::Funded(chan) = chan_phase_entry.get_mut() {
let (closing_signed, tx) = try_chan_phase_entry!(self, chan.closing_signed(&self.fee_estimator, &msg), chan_phase_entry);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

but I think we can impl helper methods on a newtype for the map to make things more readable and dedup stuff.

One thing I noticed while reviewing is there are a good amount of places where we want to use the chan_phase_entry and the chan, and only match on one variant, and otherwise if it's vacant in the hashmap or a different variant, we return roughly the same error. This might be a pattern where a helper/macro could simplify some things, not sure if it's best fit for this PR or a followup but just an idea :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Keeping this for a followup for now, but might tack it on in this PR still.

@dunxen dunxen force-pushed the 2023-07-channelenummap branch 2 times, most recently from 45cfaf1 to 7ca24f6 Compare August 22, 2023 17:46
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
}
for channel in peer_state.channel_by_id.iter().filter_map(
|(_, phase)| if let ChannelPhase::Funded(channel) = phase {
if channel.context.is_funding_initiated() { Some(channel) } else { None }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Checking is_funding_initiated seems redundant?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There's a case where we're the channel opener and the unfunded channel becomes a funded Channel when we generate the funding transaction and before we receive funding_signed. Then is_funding_initiated() would return false.

I think you had suggested we only promote a channel to funded when we receive funding_signed and create a monitor for it, but the consensus was that we do it when we generate the txid-based channel ID so we don't mix them in the maps (and some other stuff). But now we're back to having one map so they would be mixed anyway. So maybe we go back to that and then can get rid of is_funding_initiated()?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I think we should.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Irrespective of if we change when a channel becomes funded (which we can change, I think, sgtm), we'll still have this issue here with dual-funded channels where one channel has completed its monitor update and another has not. See discussion at #2486, but lets at least leave this LoC. If we want to move the post for when a channel becomes funded, should we do that in a separate PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah I wasn't thinking of changing it here. If we do end up shifting it then it'll be a separate PR after dual funding is considered. Focus is to get this PR through and get that V2 establishment PR ready for review and make progress there.

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@dunxen
Copy link
Contributor Author

dunxen commented Aug 23, 2023

Thanks for the review. Addressing.

@dunxen dunxen force-pushed the 2023-07-channelenummap branch 3 times, most recently from c67d033 to ad7b75e Compare August 27, 2023 13:06
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@dunxen dunxen force-pushed the 2023-07-channelenummap branch 3 times, most recently from b559f33 to 592db11 Compare September 5, 2023 19:13
Copy link
Contributor

@wpaulino wpaulino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, just a few minor comments

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM aside from @wpaulino's comments and two nits below. Feel free to squash as you go I think, would like to land this tomorrow.

lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
We introduce the `ChannelPhase` enum which will contain the different
channel structs wrapped by each of its variants so that we can place
these within a single `channel_by_id` map in `peer_state` in the
following commits. This will reduce the number of map lookup operations
we need to do in `ChannelManager`'s various methods. It will also make
certain channel counting logic easier to reason about with less risk of
forgetting to modify logic when new channels structs are introduced for
V2 channel establishment.
Copy link
Contributor

@wpaulino wpaulino left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, just a couple more nits

@@ -2057,7 +2113,21 @@ macro_rules! handle_new_monitor_update {
})
} };
($self: ident, $funding_txo: expr, $update: expr, $peer_state_lock: expr, $peer_state: expr, $per_peer_state_lock: expr, $chan_entry: expr) => {
handle_new_monitor_update!($self, $funding_txo, $update, $peer_state_lock, $peer_state, $per_peer_state_lock, $chan_entry.get_mut(), MANUALLY_REMOVING, $chan_entry.remove_entry())
if let ChannelPhase::Funded(chan) = $chan_entry.get_mut() {
handle_new_monitor_update!($self, $funding_txo, $update, $peer_state_lock, $peer_state, $per_peer_state_lock, chan, MANUALLY_REMOVING, {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: extra blank space at end of line

handle_new_monitor_update!($self, $funding_txo, $update, $peer_state_lock, $peer_state, $per_peer_state_lock, $chan_entry.get_mut(), MANUALLY_REMOVING, $chan_entry.remove_entry())
if let ChannelPhase::Funded(chan) = $chan_entry.get_mut() {
handle_new_monitor_update!($self, $funding_txo, $update, $peer_state_lock, $peer_state, $per_peer_state_lock, chan, MANUALLY_REMOVING, {
if let ChannelPhase::Funded(chan) = $chan_entry.remove() { chan } else { unreachable!() }
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Remove without variant check

Comment on lines +2125 to +2065
let (_, err) = convert_chan_phase_err!($self, ChannelError::Close(
"Cannot update monitor for unfunded channels as they don't have monitors yet".into()),
$chan_entry.get_mut(), &channel_id);
$chan_entry.remove();
Err(err)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we can just use try_chan_phase_entry?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think it leads to an early return and messes things up here.

@wpaulino
Copy link
Contributor

wpaulino commented Sep 8, 2023

Whenever possible, if not using fixups, please keep rebases as their own push when also addressing feedback so that it's easier to tell what changed.

@dunxen
Copy link
Contributor Author

dunxen commented Sep 8, 2023

Whenever possible, if not using fixups, please keep rebases as their own push when also addressing feedback so that it's easier to tell what changed.

Sorry about that.

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit 6436232 into lightningdevkit:main Sep 9, 2023
12 of 14 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider using an enum for channel phase in single PeerState::channel_by_id map
6 participants