-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 412
Revert attribution of failures #3817
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
Merged
joostjager
merged 2 commits into
lightningdevkit:main
from
joostjager:attr-failure-decode-fix
Jun 10, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pre-existing, but don't we need to check whether the node supports attributable failures here?
As-is we would:
attribution_failed_channel
for a node that doesn't support attributable failuresattribution_failed_channel
for a node that does support attributable failures but didn't include themThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The code is currently written as if there is universal support for it, but then - and this is what this PR changes - we don't act on it (yet).
I think we do now, because when we don't receive
attribution_data
from the first hop, we blame that hop?I am not completely sure how to weave the feature bit into this when we have this deployed. If by that time the large majority supports it, maybe the logic as is is fine? If the original failure field is readable, we don't even need to look at
attribution_data
because the failure is already attributable. So we'd still only make a decision for that random data vulnerability that currently doesn't seem to be exploited.But interested to hear how you see this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
Wouldn't we just check
RouteHop.node_features
and then attribute if there's noattribution_data
?It just didn't seem right to blame a node that doesn't support the feature, but maybe it's a good incentive to upgrade (if you don't you're still not avoiding blame).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That indeed seems the straight forward way to do it. Punish node pairs for not supporting what they advertize. I just don't know if it is still necessary when we get there. Perhaps so many nodes have upgraded already, that we can punish regardless of the feature bit. Also because this code path only becomes active when the original failure message can't be deciphered, so it remains the exception either way.