Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BOLT 12 refund encoding and building #1908

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Dec 16, 2022

Conversation

jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor

@jkczyz jkczyz commented Dec 8, 2022

Define an interface for BOLT 12 refunds (i.e., "offer for money" or merchant-pays-user flow), which are a special type of invoice_request communicated out-of-band (e.g., via QR code). As with other messages, the underlying format consists of the original bytes and the parsed contents.

The bytes are later needed when constructing an invoice message. This is because it must mirror all the offer and invoice_request TLV records, including unknown ones, which aren't represented in the contents. The contents will be used in invoice messages to avoid duplication.

Also, defines a builder for constructing a refund given a required payer id and other fields.

@jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkczyz commented Dec 8, 2022

@valentinewallace @TheBlueMatt Looking for Concept ACK on the last three commits before I get too far into testing. Given the different semantics between refunds and invoice_request, I opted to make separate structs (Refund and RefundContents) and only reuse the TLV stream structs.

This causes a compilation error if a new field is added but missed in
the tests.
@jkczyz jkczyz marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2022 22:53
@jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkczyz commented Dec 12, 2022

Ended up writing the tests as I don't expect the interface to change much even if the underlying representation does.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 13, 2022

Codecov Report

Base: 92.18% // Head: 92.15% // Decreases project coverage by -0.02% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (4d7e296) compared to base (b25c8df).
Patch coverage: 94.07% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 4d7e296 differs from pull request most recent head 9b92a09. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9b92a09 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1908      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.18%   92.15%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          94       95       +1     
  Lines       61379    62014     +635     
  Branches    61379    62014     +635     
==========================================
+ Hits        56580    57148     +568     
- Misses       4799     4866      +67     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
lightning/src/offers/parse.rs 94.00% <ø> (ø)
lightning/src/offers/refund.rs 93.73% <93.73%> (ø)
lightning/src/offers/invoice_request.rs 94.96% <100.00%> (-0.04%) ⬇️
lightning/src/offers/offer.rs 93.40% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
lightning/src/util/ser_macros.rs 87.28% <100.00%> (+0.08%) ⬆️
lightning/src/chain/mod.rs 59.25% <0.00%> (-8.93%) ⬇️
lightning/src/ln/channelmanager.rs 89.17% <0.00%> (-0.49%) ⬇️
lightning/src/ln/functional_tests.rs 98.11% <0.00%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
lightning/src/ln/chan_utils.rs 95.33% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
lightning/src/util/events.rs 29.01% <0.00%> (+0.04%) ⬆️
... and 5 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

So the question is basically if its okay to not reuse the InvoiceRequest's PayerContents/InvoiceRequestContents strucs htere, given they're built around OfferContents and we have no offer to speak of here? That seems fine, only question is how that's gonna impact the ultimate Invoice struct - it means we can't use an underlying InvoiceRequest object like we do for InvoiceRequest building on Offer. I guess it'll just have an enum switching between an underlying invoicerequest/refund?

TheBlueMatt
TheBlueMatt previously approved these changes Dec 13, 2022
Copy link
Collaborator

@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, though, actually. Pending the one question above.

@jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkczyz commented Dec 13, 2022

So the question is basically if its okay to not reuse the InvoiceRequest's PayerContents/InvoiceRequestContents strucs htere, given they're built around OfferContents and we have no offer to speak of here? That seems fine, only question is how that's gonna impact the ultimate Invoice struct - it means we can't use an underlying InvoiceRequest object like we do for InvoiceRequest building on Offer. I guess it'll just have an enum switching between an underlying invoicerequest/refund?

Yeah, essentially. Could also convert it to InvoiceRequestContent in lieu of an enum. Though that's only possible now because OfferContents::signing_pubkey is an Option. Arguably, this PR should make it required. Leaving it as an Option would let us determine if the invoice is for an offer or a refund. I'm leaning more towards the enum approach given we should probably validate the invoice_request portion of an invoice-from-a-refund correctly.

Additionally, spontaneous invoices represent a third type of invoice, which is an invoice without a preceding invoice_request. This could in theory be another variant, though we'd still need to a standalone struct, I think, given it has its own semantics and has a bech32 representation.

@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Collaborator

Arguably, this PR should make it required.

That SGTM.

Leaving it as an Option would let us determine if the invoice is for an offer or a refund.

Well, we'd also be able to see that from the enum variant, no?

@jkczyz
Copy link
Contributor Author

jkczyz commented Dec 13, 2022

Well, we'd also be able to see that from the enum variant, no?

Yup, would just be an alternative way of differentiating if not going with an enum.

Refunds (i.e., `invoice_request` without an `offer`) will have its own
contents type, so OfferContents::signing_pubkey can be required.
Copy link
Contributor

@valentinewallace valentinewallace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basically LGTM! Feel free to squash in fixups

Define an interface for BOLT 12 refunds (i.e., an `invoice_request`
message without an `offer_node_id`). A refund is more generally an
"offer for money". While it is encoded using the same TLV streams as an
`invoice_request` message, it has different semantics.
Implement Bech32Encode for Refund, which supports creating and parsing
QR codes for the merchant-pays-user (i.e., offer for money) flow.
Add a builder for creating refunds given a payer_id and other required
fields. Other settings are optional and duplicative settings will
override previous settings. Building produces a semantically valid
`invoice_request` message representing the refund, which then may be
communicated out of band (e.g., via QR code).
Tests for checking invoice_request message semantics when building a
refund as defined by BOLT 12.
Tests for checking refund semantics when parsing invoice_request bytes
as defined by BOLT 12.
@TheBlueMatt TheBlueMatt merged commit 45eb0f3 into lightningdevkit:main Dec 16, 2022
@jkczyz jkczyz mentioned this pull request May 10, 2023
60 tasks
k0k0ne pushed a commit to bitlightlabs/rust-lightning that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2024
0.0.114 - Mar 3, 2023 - "Faster Async BOLT12 Retries"

API Updates
===========

 * `InvoicePayer` has been removed and its features moved directly into
   `ChannelManager`. As such it now requires a simplified `Router` and supports
   `send_payment_with_retry` (and friends). `ChannelManager::retry_payment` was
   removed in favor of the automated retries. Invoice payment utilities in
   `lightning-invoice` now call the new code (lightningdevkit#1812, lightningdevkit#1916, lightningdevkit#1929, lightningdevkit#2007, etc).
 * `Sign`/`BaseSign` has been renamed `ChannelSigner`, with `EcdsaChannelSigner`
   split out in anticipation of future schnorr/taproot support (lightningdevkit#1967).
 * The catch-all `KeysInterface` was split into `EntropySource`, `NodeSigner`,
   and `SignerProvider`. `KeysManager` implements all three (lightningdevkit#1910, lightningdevkit#1930).
 * `KeysInterface::get_node_secret` is now `KeysManager::get_node_secret_key`
   and is no longer required for external signers (lightningdevkit#1951, lightningdevkit#2070).
 * A `lightning-transaction-sync` crate has been added which implements keeping
   LDK in sync with the chain via an esplora server (lightningdevkit#1870). Note that it can
   only be used on nodes that *never* ran a previous version of LDK.
 * `Score` is updated in `BackgroundProcessor` instead of via `Router` (lightningdevkit#1996).
 * `ChainAccess::get_utxo` (now `UtxoAccess`) can now be resolved async (lightningdevkit#1980).
 * BOLT12 `Offer`, `InvoiceRequest`, `Invoice` and `Refund` structs as well as
   associated builders have been added. Such invoices cannot yet be paid due to
   missing support for blinded path payments (lightningdevkit#1927, lightningdevkit#1908, lightningdevkit#1926).
 * A `lightning-custom-message` crate has been added to make combining multiple
   custom messages into one enum/handler easier (lightningdevkit#1832).
 * `Event::PaymentPathFailure` is now generated for failure to send an HTLC
   over the first hop on our local channel (lightningdevkit#2014, lightningdevkit#2043).
 * `lightning-net-tokio` no longer requires an `Arc` on `PeerManager` (lightningdevkit#1968).
 * `ChannelManager::list_recent_payments` was added (lightningdevkit#1873).
 * `lightning-background-processor` `std` is now optional in async mode (lightningdevkit#1962).
 * `create_phantom_invoice` can now be used in `no-std` (lightningdevkit#1985).
 * The required final CLTV delta on inbound payments is now configurable (lightningdevkit#1878)
 * bitcoind RPC error code and message are now surfaced in `block-sync` (lightningdevkit#2057).
 * Get `historical_estimated_channel_liquidity_probabilities` was added (lightningdevkit#1961).
 * `ChannelManager::fail_htlc_backwards_with_reason` was added (lightningdevkit#1948).
 * Macros which implement serialization using TLVs or straight writing of struct
   fields are now public (lightningdevkit#1823, lightningdevkit#1976, lightningdevkit#1977).

Backwards Compatibility
=======================

 * Any inbound payments with a custom final CLTV delta will be rejected by LDK
   if you downgrade prior to receipt (lightningdevkit#1878).
 * `Event::PaymentPathFailed::network_update` will always be `None` if an
   0.0.114-generated event is read by a prior version of LDK (lightningdevkit#2043).
 * `Event::PaymentPathFailed::all_paths_removed` will always be false if an
   0.0.114-generated event is read by a prior version of LDK. Users who rely on
   it to determine payment retries should migrate to `Event::PaymentFailed`, in
   a separate release prior to upgrading to LDK 0.0.114 if downgrading is
   supported (lightningdevkit#2043).

Performance Improvements
========================

 * Channel data is now stored per-peer and channel updates across multiple
   peers can be operated on simultaneously (lightningdevkit#1507).
 * Routefinding is roughly 1.5x faster (lightningdevkit#1799).
 * Deserializing a `NetworkGraph` is roughly 6x faster (lightningdevkit#2016).
 * Memory usage for a `NetworkGraph` has been reduced substantially (lightningdevkit#2040).
 * `KeysInterface::get_secure_random_bytes` is roughly 200x faster (lightningdevkit#1974).

Bug Fixes
=========

 * Fixed a bug where a delay in processing a `PaymentSent` event longer than the
   time taken to persist a `ChannelMonitor` update, when occurring immediately
   prior to a crash, may result in the `PaymentSent` event being lost (lightningdevkit#2048).
 * Fixed spurious rejections of rapid gossip sync data when the graph has been
   updated by other means between gossip syncs (lightningdevkit#2046).
 * Fixed a panic in `KeysManager` when the high bit of `starting_time_nanos`
   is set (lightningdevkit#1935).
 * Resolved an issue where the `ChannelManager::get_persistable_update_future`
   future would fail to wake until a second notification occurs (lightningdevkit#2064).
 * Resolved a memory leak when using `ChannelManager::send_probe` (lightningdevkit#2037).
 * Fixed a deadlock on some platforms at least when using async `ChannelMonitor`
   updating (lightningdevkit#2006).
 * Removed debug-only assertions which were reachable in threaded code (lightningdevkit#1964).
 * In some cases when payment sending fails on our local channel retries no
   longer take the same path and thus never succeed (lightningdevkit#2014).
 * Retries for spontaneous payments have been fixed (lightningdevkit#2002).
 * Return an `Err` if `lightning-persister` fails to read the directory listing
   rather than panicing (lightningdevkit#1943).
 * `peer_disconnected` will now never be called without `peer_connected` (lightningdevkit#2035)

Security
========

0.0.114 fixes several denial-of-service vulnerabilities which are reachable from
untrusted input from channel counterparties or in deployments accepting inbound
connections or channels. It also fixes a denial-of-service vulnerability in rare
cases in the route finding logic.
 * The number of pending un-funded channels as well as peers without funded
   channels is now limited to avoid denial of service (lightningdevkit#1988).
 * A second `channel_ready` message received immediately after the first could
   lead to a spurious panic (lightningdevkit#2071). This issue was introduced with 0conf
   support in LDK 0.0.107.
 * A division-by-zero issue was fixed in the `ProbabilisticScorer` if the amount
   being sent (including previous-hop fees) is equal to a channel's capacity
   while walking the graph (lightningdevkit#2072). The division-by-zero was introduced with
   historical data tracking in LDK 0.0.112.

In total, this release features 130 files changed, 21457 insertions, 10113
deletions in 343 commits from 18 authors, in alphabetical order:
 * Alec Chen
 * Allan Douglas R. de Oliveira
 * Andrei
 * Arik Sosman
 * Daniel Granhão
 * Duncan Dean
 * Elias Rohrer
 * Jeffrey Czyz
 * John Cantrell
 * Kurtsley
 * Matt Corallo
 * Max Fang
 * Omer Yacine
 * Valentine Wallace
 * Viktor Tigerström
 * Wilmer Paulino
 * benthecarman
 * jurvis
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants