Skip to content

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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
valentinewallace merged 5 commits into from
Dec 11, 2024
Merged

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel #3340

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e
Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes
TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390
Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`
TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70
Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes
wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93
Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible
wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...


/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down
80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
&mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
&mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
}

let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
let mut aggregated_request = None;

// Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
// <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
for req in requests {
// Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
// First drop any duplicate claims.
requests.retain(|req| {
debug_assert_eq!(
req.outpoints().len(),
1,
"Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
);
let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
all_outpoints_claiming = false;
}
}
if all_outpoints_claiming {
log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
false
} else {
let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
.find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
continue;
false
} else {
true
}
}
});

let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
// Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
for j in 0..i {
if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
let merge = requests.remove(i);
if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
requests.insert(i, rejected);

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?

@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.

The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.

I can remove the commit as well though.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.

@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.

} else {
break;
}
self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
continue;
}
}
}

log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
preprocessed_requests.push(req);
} else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
aggregated_request = Some(req);
} else {
aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
// Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
for req in requests {
let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
for outpoint in req.outpoints() {

@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.

@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?

log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
}
self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
} else {
preprocessed_requests.push(req);
}
}
if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
preprocessed_requests.push(req);
}

// Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
// Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
// Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
// resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading
, '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" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading

, '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); }
})();
})();
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel by wvanlint · Pull Request #3340 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel#3340

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.

 Sign up for GitHub

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

valentinewallace
merged 5 commits into

from

Dec 11, 2024
 Merged


Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel
#3340
Show file tree
Hide file tree
 Changes from all commits
Commits

Show all changes


5 commits


Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fd8b84e

Make several tests more robust against harmless transaction changes


TheBlueMatt Sep 7, 2024
24b8390

Move `PackageTemplate` merging decisions entirely into `package.rs`


TheBlueMatt Sep 6, 2024
69e1c70

Refactor `package_locktime` in terms of signed and minimum locktimes


wvanlint Sep 19, 2024
bbf1d93

Make `PackageTemplate::merge_package` fallible


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024
0fe90c6

Batch on-chain claims more aggressively per channel


wvanlint Sep 20, 2024

File filter

Filter by extension
Filter by extension
Conversations

Failed to load comments. 
Loading
Jump to

Jump to file


Failed to load files. 
Loading
 Diff view

 Diff view


13 changes: 10 additions & 3 deletions
lightning/src/chain/channelmonitor.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -216,9 +216,16 @@ impl_writeable_tlv_based!(HTLCUpdate, {
	(4, payment_preimage, option),
});

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, don't try to claim it in a shared transaction,
/// instead claiming it in its own individual transaction.
pub(crate) const CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER: u32 = 12;
/// If an output goes from claimable only by us to claimable by us or our counterparty within this
/// many blocks, we consider it pinnable for the purposes of aggregating claims in a single
/// transaction.
pub(crate) const COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE: u32 = 12;

/// When we go to force-close a channel because an HTLC is expiring, we should ensure that the
/// HTLC(s) expiring are not considered pinnable, allowing us to aggregate them with other HTLC(s)
/// expiring at the same time.
const _: () = assert!(CLTV_CLAIM_BUFFER > COUNTERPARTY_CLAIMABLE_WITHIN_BLOCKS_PINNABLE);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL you can do this in our MSRV...lol we've got some code cleanup to do...

/// If an HTLC expires within this many blocks, force-close the channel to broadcast the
/// HTLC-Success transaction.
/// In other words, this is an upper bound on how many blocks we think it can take us to get a
Expand Down

80 changes: 49 additions & 31 deletions
lightning/src/chain/onchaintx.rs

View file


Open in desktop

Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
Expand Up@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ use crate::types::payment::PaymentPreimage;
use crate::ln::chan_utils::{self, ChannelTransactionParameters, HTLCOutputInCommitment, HolderCommitmentTransaction};
use crate::chain::ClaimId;
use crate::chain::chaininterface::{FeeEstimator, BroadcasterInterface, LowerBoundedFeeEstimator};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::{ANTI_REORG_DELAY, CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER};
use crate::chain::channelmonitor::ANTI_REORG_DELAY;
use crate::chain::package::{PackageSolvingData, PackageTemplate};
use crate::chain::transaction::MaybeSignedTransaction;
use crate::util::logger::Logger;
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
	/// does not need to equal the current blockchain tip height, which should be provided via
	/// `cur_height`, however it must never be higher than `cur_height`.
	pub(super) fn update_claims_view_from_requests<B: Deref, F: Deref, L: Logger>(
 &mut self, requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 &mut self, mut requests: Vec<PackageTemplate>, conf_height: u32, cur_height: u32,
 broadcaster: &B, conf_target: ConfirmationTarget,
 fee_estimator: &LowerBoundedFeeEstimator<F>, logger: &L
	) where
Expand All@@ -737,49 +737,67 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 log_debug!(logger, "Updating claims view at height {} with {} claim requests", cur_height, requests.len());
 }

 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 let mut aggregated_request = None;

 // Try to aggregate outputs if their timelock expiration isn't imminent (package timelock
 // <= CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER) and they don't require an immediate nLockTime (aggregable).
 for req in requests {
 // Don't claim a outpoint twice that would be bad for privacy and may uselessly lock a CPFP input for a while
 if let Some(_) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(req.outpoints()[0]) {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request", req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 // First drop any duplicate claims.
 requests.retain(|req| {
 debug_assert_eq!(
 req.outpoints().len(),
 1,
 "Claims passed to `update_claims_view_from_requests` should not be aggregated"
 );
 let mut all_outpoints_claiming = true;
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 if self.claimable_outpoints.get(outpoint).is_none() {
 all_outpoints_claiming = false;
 }
 }
 if all_outpoints_claiming {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, already registered its claiming request",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout);
 false
 } else {
 let timelocked_equivalent_package = self.locktimed_packages.iter().map(|v| v.1.iter()).flatten()
 .find(|locked_package| locked_package.outpoints() == req.outpoints());
 if let Some(package) = timelocked_equivalent_package {
 log_info!(logger, "Ignoring second claim for outpoint {}:{}, we already have one which we're waiting on a timelock at {} for.",
 req.outpoints()[0].txid, req.outpoints()[0].vout, package.package_locktime(cur_height));
 continue;
 false
 } else {
 true
 }
 }
 });

 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 // Then try to maximally aggregate `requests`.
 for i in (1..requests.len()).rev() {
 for j in 0..i {
 if requests[i].can_merge_with(&requests[j], cur_height) {
 let merge = requests.remove(i);
 if let Err(rejected) = requests[j].merge_package(merge, cur_height) {
 debug_assert!(false, "Merging package should not be rejected after verifying can_merge_with.");
 requests.insert(i, rejected);
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattOct 28, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hmm, removing then inserting at every step is kinda annoying cause it generally requires a vec shift...I'm not entirely convinced by this commit. If we want to reduce the risk of accidental panic introductions with code changes maybe we rename merge_package to make it clearer that it assumes can_merge_with?
@wvanlintwvanlintOct 30, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, the re-inserts were only introduced as an alternative to panicking on the Err(_) here. However, those errors should never occur as we call can_merge_with beforehand. Added a debug_assert!(false, _). I can change the re-inserts to a panic! as well to maintain the previous behavior.
The main goal was to push panic!s up in the stack, while avoiding preconditions on merge_package. Since the Result of merge_package is determined by can_merge_with, the latter can be used beforehand to optimize any calls.
I can remove the commit as well though.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattDec 6, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is fine. Note that the fixup commit will need to go on the Make PackageTemplate::merge_package fallible commit, not at the end where it currently sits.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 10, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Moved the fixup commit into the right place.
 } else {
 break;
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 continue;
 }
 }
 }

 log_trace!(logger, "Test if outpoint which our counterparty can spend at {} can be aggregated based on aggregation limit {}", req.counterparty_spendable_height(), cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER);
 if req.counterparty_spendable_height() <= cur_height + CLTV_SHARED_CLAIM_BUFFER || !req.aggregable() {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 } else if aggregated_request.is_none() {
 aggregated_request = Some(req);
 } else {
 aggregated_request.as_mut().unwrap().merge_package(req);
 // Finally, split requests into timelocked ones and immediately-spendable ones.
 let mut preprocessed_requests = Vec::with_capacity(requests.len());
 for req in requests {
 let package_locktime = req.package_locktime(cur_height);
 if package_locktime > cur_height + 1 {
 log_info!(logger, "Delaying claim of package until its timelock at {} (current height {}), the following outpoints are spent:", package_locktime, cur_height);
 for outpoint in req.outpoints() {
@valentinewallacevalentinewallaceDec 3, 2024

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pre-existing, but it looks like PackageTemplate::outpoints might be able to return an iterator and save some allocations. Probably not for this PR though.
@wvanlintwvanlintDec 5, 2024•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I took a quick stab at it, but it did not turn out to be entirely straightforward. Is it okay to postpone to another PR?
 log_info!(logger, " Outpoint {}", outpoint);
 }
 self.locktimed_packages.entry(package_locktime).or_default().push(req);
 } else {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }
 }
 if let Some(req) = aggregated_request {
 preprocessed_requests.push(req);
 }

 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`
 // Claim everything up to and including `cur_height`.
 let remaining_locked_packages = self.locktimed_packages.split_off(&(cur_height + 1));
 if !self.locktimed_packages.is_empty() {
 log_debug!(logger,
Expand DownExpand Up@@ -1088,7 +1106,7 @@ impl<ChannelSigner: EcdsaChannelSigner> OnchainTxHandler<ChannelSigner> {
 OnchainEvent::ContentiousOutpoint { package } => {
 if let Some(pending_claim) = self.claimable_outpoints.get(package.outpoints()[0]) {
 if let Some(request) = self.pending_claim_requests.get_mut(&pending_claim.0) {
 request.merge_package(package);
assert!(request.merge_package(package, height).is_ok());
 // Using a HashMap guarantee us than if we have multiple outpoints getting
 // resurrected only one bump claim tx is going to be broadcast
 bump_candidates.insert(pending_claim.clone(), request.clone());
Expand Down
Loading