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

Better handling unexpected msgs #841

Conversation

rustyrussell
Copy link
Contributor

Common handling style for messages in daemons, plus better per-peer logging.

In particular, decode error messages correctly and do the right thing with
messages about other channels.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
In particular, handle pings.  The rest is modelled on the channeld one,
but annoyingly different enough that it's hard to share code without
significant work.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
In particular, this one didn't handle them trying to open a different
channel at the same time.  Again, deliberately very similar, but
unfortunately different enough that sharing is awkward.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
This makes much more sense when you ask for a specific peer's log.
Also, we put the peerid rather than pid ().

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
@@ -80,6 +83,92 @@ static u64 one_towards(u64 target, u64 value)
return value;
}

static void handle_ping(const u8 *msg,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cannot we factor out this function to common/ping.c? I dislike multiple functions with different contents having the same name. In addition, the handle_ping in openingd and closingd look very very similar (possibly except for PEER_FD but that can be passed in). Only the handle_ping in channeld is different because it enqueues the pong reply rather than sending it synchronously (but maybe sending it synchronously is acceptable to reduce code duplication...?)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, as commit msg says, they're just similar enough to be annoying. I think trying to merge this is a future TODO.

Exception: Node /tmp/lightning-t5gxc6gs/test_closing_different_fees/lightning-2/ has memory leaks: [{'value': '0x55caa0a0b8d0', 'label': 'ccan/ccan/tal/str/str.c:90:char[]', 'backtrace': ['ccan/ccan/tal/tal.c:467 (tal_alloc_)', 'ccan/ccan/tal/tal.c:496 (tal_alloc_arr_)', 'ccan/ccan/tal/str/str.c:90 (tal_vfmt)', 'lightningd/log.c:131 (new_log)', 'lightningd/subd.c:632 (new_subd)', 'lightningd/subd.c:686 (new_peer_subd)', 'lightningd/peer_control.c:2487 (peer_accept_channel)', 'lightningd/peer_control.c:674 (peer_sent_nongossip)', 'lightningd/gossip_control.c:55 (peer_nongossip)', 'lightningd/gossip_control.c:142 (gossip_msg)', 'lightningd/subd.c:477 (sd_msg_read)', 'lightningd/subd.c:319 (read_fds)', 'ccan/ccan/io/io.c:59 (next_plan)', 'ccan/ccan/io/io.c:387 (do_plan)', 'ccan/ccan/io/io.c:397 (io_ready)', 'ccan/ccan/io/poll.c:305 (io_loop)', 'lightningd/lightningd.c:347 (main)', '(null):0 ((null))', '(null):0 ((null))', '(null):0 ((null))'], 'parents': ['lightningd/log.c:103:struct log_book', 'lightningd/lightningd.c:43:struct lightningd']}]

Technically, true, but we save more memory by sharing the prefix pointer
than we lose by leaking it.

However, we'd ideally refcount so it's freed if the log is freed and
all the entries using it are pruned from the log book.

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
@rustyrussell rustyrussell mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2018
@cdecker
Copy link
Member

cdecker commented Jan 30, 2018

Other than the code duplication noted by @ZmnSCPxj this is ok.

ACK 04e16b3

@rustyrussell rustyrussell merged commit ca2f72f into ElementsProject:master Jan 30, 2018
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.

3 participants