--- Log opened Wed Feb 26 00:00:06 2020 03:08 -!- Cameron7Olson [~Cameron7O@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has joined #rust-bitcoin 05:32 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:34 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin 05:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #rust-bitcoin 07:58 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.180] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 08:25 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:26 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin 08:32 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.206] has joined #rust-bitcoin 10:50 -!- mauz555 [~mauz555@2a01:e0a:56d:9090:4da4:4d81:3f24:e164] has joined #rust-bitcoin 10:59 -!- mauz555 [~mauz555@2a01:e0a:56d:9090:4da4:4d81:3f24:e164] has quit [] 11:03 < ariard> BlueMatt: "If you did not successfully write the update to your own local storage, a counterparty could replay a different Channel update which may lead to inconsistent state." the part I don't get is counterparty for an internal storage issue? 11:06 -!- Cameron7Olson [~Cameron7O@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 11:07 < gwillen> ariard: I don't have context for this, but assuming that I'm inferring it correctly: in lightning and similar protocols, it may be that your ability to defend against certain types of attacks requires you to have a local copy of the channel state 11:08 < gwillen> so if you have a local storage problem and lose your copy of the channel state, this opens you up to attacks where your lightning counterparty replays an older state and you can't defend 11:11 < ariard> gwillen: yeah I think that's what Matt means here, context is here https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-lightning/pull/489#discussion_r383512303 11:12 < ariard> just "Channel update" is unclear to me as terminology, should be keep for as an internal reference, "a counterparty may replay an older Channel state which may lead to ChannelMonitor not having right Channel update copy to punish" 11:14 < gwillen> ahhh, I see 11:36 < BlueMatt> ariard: no, i do mean channel state there 11:36 < BlueMatt> ariard: because here is no requirement that the *channel* itself is written to disk synchronously, you could replay to a different channel state after a crash+reload! 11:36 < BlueMatt> (the only *actual* requirement is that you synchrously write the channel monitor state to disk) 11:38 < ariard> BlueMatt: and the failure scenario is your counterparty exploiting the fact that your latest update hasn't been committed on disk after a crash? 11:38 < BlueMatt> yea 11:38 < BlueMatt> essentially, yes 11:38 < BlueMatt> though tbh my memory is fuzzy, and I *thought* there was an additional issue with it, but I may be wrong 11:39 < ariard> I agree with you, I think it's just a choice of wording, Channel update is easily associated to ChannelMonitorUpdate 11:40 < ariard> maybe update comment with describing more precisely the failure scenario, at least the ones you can think of? 11:40 < BlueMatt> channel update *is* ChannelMonitorUpdate? 11:42 < ariard> hmmm but that's our *internal* data structure name, it's confusing to use something similar to speak about what counterparty does 11:42 < BlueMatt> hmm? 11:42 < ariard> nevermind, let at is we may come up with a better wording latter 11:42 < BlueMatt> I'm really confused I dont think we're on the same page 12:23 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:24 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin 12:41 < ariard> BlueMatt: re-https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-lightning/pull/489#discussion_r383548512 while calling revoked_and_ack, you may increment twice latest_monitor_update_id, one for CommitmentSecret, one for PaymentPreimage 12:41 < ariard> and doesn't seem incompatible code paths? 13:16 < ariard> BlueMatt: #513 should be good 14:02 < ariard> BlueMatt: #462 rebased on top of #489, conflict rebase less worst than expected 14:03 < BlueMatt> ariard: cool. I'm still working on a test for 472 but hopefully once I get that working I'll circle back around to everything 14:03 < BlueMatt> I do have an updated comment for you in 489 (not yet pushed), but other than that still waiting on more review from you I think 14:13 < ariard> BlueMatt: I replied to most of your comments I think minus the point we were talking above, also did a new review on the latest_monitor_updated_id, still have a doubt see question above 14:13 < ariard> BlueMatt: ofc will do a new parse when comment updates pushed 14:41 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin 16:37 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:39 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin 17:24 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20:01 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:02 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin 21:32 -!- guest534543 [~mix@141.98.103.206] has joined #rust-bitcoin 21:34 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 21:48 -!- guest534543 [~mix@141.98.103.206] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 21:49 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.206] has joined #rust-bitcoin 22:34 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:43 -!- Kiminuo [~mix@141.98.103.148] has joined #rust-bitcoin --- Log closed Thu Feb 27 00:00:06 2020