Skip to content

Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537

Closed
#3538
Closed
Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
#3538

Description

@morehouse
morehouse
opened on Jan 14, 2025

The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.

The offending line is here:

rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

Line 967 in 463e432

break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their

In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.

After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.

As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
      Closed
      #3538
      Closed
      Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
      #3538
      Description
      @morehouse
      morehouse
      opened on Jan 14, 2025
      The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
      The offending line is here:
      rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
      
Line 967
in
463e432
      break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
      In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
      After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
      As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
          Closed
          #3538
          Closed
          Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
          #3538
          Description
          @morehouse
          morehouse
          opened on Jan 14, 2025
          The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
          The offending line is here:
          rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
          
Line 967
in
463e432
          break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
          In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
          After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
          As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
              Closed
              #3538
              Closed
              Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
              #3538
              Description
              @morehouse
              morehouse
              opened on Jan 14, 2025
              The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
              The offending line is here:
              rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
              
Line 967
in
463e432
              break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
              In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
              After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
              As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
                  Closed
                  #3538
                  Closed
                  Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
                  #3538
                  Description
                  @morehouse
                  morehouse
                  opened on Jan 14, 2025
                  The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
                  The offending line is here:
                  rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
                  
Line 967
in
463e432
                  break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
                  In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
                  After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
                  As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
                      Closed
                      #3538
                      Closed
                      Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
                      #3538
                      Description
                      @morehouse
                      morehouse
                      opened on Jan 14, 2025
                      The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
                      The offending line is here:
                      rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
                      
Line 967
in
463e432
                      break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
                      In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
                      After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
                      As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
                          Closed
                          #3538
                          Closed
                          Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
                          #3538
                          Description
                          @morehouse
                          morehouse
                          opened on Jan 14, 2025
                          The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
                          The offending line is here:
                          rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
                          
Line 967
in
463e432
                          break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
                          In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
                          After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
                          As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
Package splitting should continue after first conflict · Issue #3537 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              Package splitting should continue after first conflict #3537
                              Closed
                              #3538
                              Closed
                              Package splitting should continue after first conflict#3537
                              #3538
                              Description
                              @morehouse
                              morehouse
                              opened on Jan 14, 2025
                              The package splitting logic in OnchainTxHandler.update_claims_view_from_matched_tx scans confirmed transactions for any spends that conflict with the current package templates. If a conflicting spend for one of the package inputs is found, it splits that input out of the package and attempts to claim the remaining package inputs in a new transaction. Unfortunately the logic to detect conflicts stops once it finds the first conflicting package, so if the counterparty confirms a transaction conflicting with two packages, we fail to split up the second package. As a result, the transaction we create and broadcast for the second package will contain an already-spent input and can never be mined.
                              The offending line is here:
                              rust-lightning/lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
                              
Line 967
in
463e432
                              break;//No need to iterate further, either tx is our or their
                              In currently released versions of LDK, this bug can be exploited to lock up a victim node's liquidity.
                              After #3340 the bug can be exploited to steal funds. Note that only v0.1.0-beta1 is vulnerable to the theft attack, and no official (non-beta) releases are vulnerable.
                              As discussed with @TheBlueMatt and @wpaulino, the bug will be fixed prior to the official v0.1.0 release.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions