Skip to content

Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445

Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged

Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix

Conversation

@TheBlueMatt

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt commented Jan 12, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt mentioned this pull request Jan 16, 2020
Merged
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed the 2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix branch from 76c52b0 to f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed the 2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix branch from f6f6512 to 51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs Outdated
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs Outdated
Comment on lines +6991 to +6993
let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
&SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);

@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.

@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
CollaboratorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed the 2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix branch from 51f96c4 to ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz reviewed Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs Outdated
@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed the 2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix branch from ecfe862 to 1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt merged commit 88b7dcd into lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz
, '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" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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('^' + ".*" + '
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz

, '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); }
})();
})();
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #445 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $. - #445
Merged
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Feb 10, 2020
Merged
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.#445
TheBlueMatt merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:masterfrom 
TheBlueMatt:2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
Conversation
@TheBlueMatt
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
commented
Jan 12, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Collaborator
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current

commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step

forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine

(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on

chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not

jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish

our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the

channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMatt
mentioned this pull request
Jan 16, 2020
 Merged

@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
76c52b0 to
f6f6512CompareJanuary 17, 2020 00:02
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
f6f6512 to
51f96c4CompareFebruary 5, 2020 01:38
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated

Comment threadlightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs
Outdated


Comment on lines

+6991
 to 
+6993

	let next_per_commitment_point = PublicKey::from_secret_key(&Secp256k1::new(),
 &SecretKey::from_slice(&chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 3)).unwrap());
	let per_commitment_secret = chan_utils::build_commitment_secret(&commitment_seed, (1 << 48) - 1);
@jkczyzjkczyzFeb 6, 2020

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.

Could what's going on with (1 << 48) - 3) and (1 << 48) - 3) be made more explicit somehow? Not sure of the best way to do it. Could be as simple as well named variables... or better yet an abstraction that hides this math but makes it clear that the commitment number was advanced one too many times.
@TheBlueMattTheBlueMattFeb 6, 2020

Copy link


Copy Markdown

CollaboratorAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A bit better? I copied the INITIAL_COMMITMENT_NUMBER const here to make the math clear.
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
51f96c4 to
ecfe862CompareFebruary 6, 2020 00:56
jkczyz
jkczyz
reviewed
Feb 6, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment threadlightning/src/ln/channel.rs
Outdated

@TheBlueMatt
Fix EnforcingChannelKeys panic when our counterparty burns their $.
60fad62
If our counterparty burns their funds by revoking their current
commitment transaction before we've sent them a new one, we'll step
forward the remote commitment number. This would be otherwise fine
(and may even encourage them to broadcast their revoked state(s) on
chain), except that our new EnforcingChannelKeys expects us to not
jump forward in time. Since it isn't too important that we punish
our counterparty in such a corner-case, we opt to just close the
channel in such a case and move on.
@TheBlueMatt
Test that EnforcingChannelKeys doesn't panic on duplicate RAAs
1443509
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMattforce-pushed
the
2020-01-fuzz-enforcer-fix
branch
from
ecfe862 to
1443509CompareFebruary 8, 2020 01:03
@TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt
merged commit 88b7dcd
into
lightningdevkit:masterFeb 10, 2020
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jkczyzjkczyzjkczyz approved these changes

Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@TheBlueMatt@jkczyz